Roadworthiness testing for vehicles of historic interest.

[Bumpa]

I'm old enough to remember when the original "10-year test" was first implemented. There were some terrible cars in daily use with bald tyres, rust holes in structural members, poor brakes, negligible shock absorbers and worn out steering joints. In the main most cars on the road today are pretty roadworthy. I have always said that it was crazy to make cars built before 1960 exempt from testing, and this latest proposal compounds the stupidity. By all means have a simpler test for older cars that covers the things mentioned in the document. Interestingly those proposals for a simpler test don't mention rust damage to the structure. That surely must be included.

By trying to enforce any proposal regarding how close a car is to "original standard", the DVLA is opening itself to endless arguments with owners about what constitutes originality. Keep it simple. All cars must be tested, but cars made before a certain date can have a simpler test. Easy to administer and easy to understand.

Mike

[matt of the vivas]

At the end of the day, no matter what anyone says the government is going to do whatever it wants anyway. Same as Brexit. Anyone believe we are ACTUALLY going to leave?

[GTS290N]

Look on the bright sides:

1.Duty Free
2.
3.
4.

erm, well, that's duty free then. Minus the cost of the visa.
Of course it stops all those bloody foreigners taking OUR jobs.
Care workers
Doctors
Nurses
Fruit pickers
Lidl and Aldi shop workers
Joiners
Brickies
Waiters and waitresses

And then there's those damnable employment laws, how dare workers have the temerity to ask for rights?

Let's get this country back to the British. After all I can trace my father's family back to the late 1800s, and my mother's family to France in 1918. Oops....

Just waiting to get this thread locked.
We should trust the Ministry of Transport to do everything that's good for us without interference from the EU.
Same for the fisheries ministry , let's get back to the seventies and clear out all those pesky inshore fish from the coast.
Roll on independence (Scottish that is).

[bazyerma]

This thread spiraled quickly!

But since my exhaust just fell off and my boot floor has a huge hole in it I would love the MOT test to be scrapped next year!

Barry

[NickMorgan]

To get things back on track (!!) my Toledo has been off the road for the last five years, but I decided this wasn't doing it any good and now that I don't need to pay for road tax I want to put it back on the road. It had its MOT yesterday, but failed on a sticky rear brake cylinder and a track rod end rubber. Not bad really, but I am happier knowing that it has been looked over by a third party than if I had been able to just return it to the road un-checked.

[sprint95m]

Be careful what you wish for….

I consider that removing the need for an MOT is a step towards restricted use.

Obviously that isn't a major concern to the vast majority of you on here since you run newer cars anyhow,
but I still think you should all consider the longterm implications of such a step…..?




Ian.

[Galileo]

A very good point, don't fancy the idea of a restricted use, I did 4,500 miles in my Sprint last year, and my only 'modern' transport is my 18 year old Fourtrak.

[Carledo]

My "daily" Cavalier is 21 this year and covered 1400 miles in the last 12 months, nearly all of them towing a trailer of some sort. MOT is due tomorrow!

The Carledo did just over 7000 in the same period - it's just so much more fun to drive!

At the moment, the proposed mileage limits (a farce anyway, seeing as how easy it is to cheat) relate only to testing. If you get the car tested you should be able to do as many miles as you like. Which would be fair enough. Set the mileage limit to 200 miles, so the trailer queens get a break and everyone else gets tested anyway and life goes on.
But a low annual mileage is no guarantee of good roadworthy condition. Stuff seizes up on cars that are not used often, even those in hermetically sealed, climate controlled cocoons!


Steve

[cleverusername]

Classic car groups were campaigning for the rolling car tax exemption to be reinstated, which did happen. However this insane proposal was the result of the government trying to throw us a bone at little cost to themselves, before they changed the tax rules..

My Dolly has got through the last two tests with no advisories, so why should I want the test abolished when it costs me less than £50, reassures me that my judgement about the vehicle is accurate and protects us all from dangerous cars being on the road that would damage the reputation of all classics.

this proposal should be shelved immediately.

[Toledo Man]

I agree that the MoT shouldn't be abolished for some of the post 1960 cars. I know we all moan and groan but it good to know that our cars are fit for the road and have been certified as such.

[captain_70s]

I'm quite glad my car failed it's MOT! I didn't realise how tender the brake lines had become until I went to unscrew the union from the caliper and the pipe immediately twisted and snapped... While pulling the brake lines off I also found the fuel line was structurally underseal as was a fair amount of the bodywork, this being a car that had gained an MOT just 12 month prior with only a single advisory...

[Mahesh]

MOT exemption been announced (40 yr rolling).

[dursley92]

I would expect insurance companies to require some kind of MOT or other roadworthiness test to prove cars over 40 years old are safe to insure. You can be certain they would like to find an excuse not to pay out in the event of a claim.

[Galileo]

Doesn't come in until May 2018 so time for the insurance companies to assess their risk. Anyway, how do insurance companies view a <1960 car now, assume they will just do the same?

[Bumpa]

Much more worthy of our attention is the proposal that any car that has more than 15% more power than standard will not be a vehicle of historic interest and must be tested annually. Fair enough you may say, but does that also mean that it won't be liable for VED exemption? The mods have to be have been done after 1st January 1988 - do you know exactly when your mods were done? Can you prove it?

Even more worrying is how are they going to determine that an engine is 15% more powerful than it used to be? Many mods don't show on the outside so those people will get away with it. How fair is that? Put it on a dyno you may say, but we all know that each dyno gives different readings from the next one, so there's no consistency there.

It's a stupid idea and will be a minefield to police.