Historic and Classic MOT

Can I ask what's wrong with the way it is now. Happy days is now prime minister , A car is a classic upon reaching its 30th birthday, road fund license is payable at the standard rate until it reaches it's 35th birthday when it becomes road fund tax is free. Mot remains the same ie once a year , which is a good thing. We don't want dangerous cars driving around.
At the next election you know where to put your X. Vote Happy Days. Simples
 
I'd Vote for Mick, the Boris Johnson of Rover world :LOL: Where mad trousers are compulsory and and the only colour allowed for furniture is Mango



John.
 
How will that affect the standard of classic cars being sold through the specialist websites?
Click to expand...
The MOT test for pre-1960 cars will still be an option, so anyone wanting to sell one for a decent price will be daft not to have it tested.
I don't see how that changes anything. Though potential buyers will probably have more wasted journeys when viewing untested cars.

what manner of terminal and potentially lethal problems could be wantonly and legally ignored by an irresponsible owner intent on doing the motorway speed limit, as is his right?
Click to expand...
Legally?. Well none, as the rules about driving an unroadworthy vehicle aren't changing.

And specialist classic insurers will be in the dangerous position of having to insure cars of completely unknown and unregulated condition. Does that mean premiums are going up? Probably. But what are the alternatives:
Click to expand...
What's to stop insurers simply requiring an MOT or hiking up premiums for untested vehicles? The change is a government decision, if insurers don't like it they'll go their own way. But hopefully they'll assess the risks properly and act accordingly. I.e. if they decide the risks are no higher, there really isn't anything to worry about.

If that's the future we have to look forward to, it suddenly seems like a lot less hassle to reform the MOT test to take into account the original equipment and performance (front-to-rear brake imbalance with bendix systems for example) of pre-1960 vehicles, and continue to test for major component integrity.
Click to expand...

Yup. During the consultation phase, I gave my view that a simplified MOT should be introduced for older cars at a reduced cost. So I'm not in favour of no test at all, but I do think you're overstating the potential problems.

The other week I was talking to a chap with a 12 ton Scammell Explorer that's tax and MOT exempt and can be driven on a car licence. Steering and braking use compressed air through a network of pipes with persistent leaks that are impossible to completely eradicate. The damage that a vehicle like that could cause is an order of magnitude higher than the average pre-1960 saloon, yet we never hear any horror stories about such trucks being allowed out on our roads. And his insurance premium was lower than that of my 2000TC.
 
To my mind the big question is "what is the government trying to achieve with this legislation?"

Greg Knight MP says that the MOT represents an "unnecessary beaurocratic hurdle" to owners of historic cars. He then goes on to say “I am delighted by this announcement. Accidents involving historic vehicles are extremely rare and the majority of owners are meticulous in keeping their vehicles in good condition. Having an annual MoT test for a vehicle which may only travel a few hundred miles in a year was costly and absurd.”

...but if owners are "meticulous in keeping their vehicles in good condition" then they have nothing to worry about come MOT time and the only cost will be in fuel and the test itself.

Moreso, whilst many aspects of the current MOT are not applicable to historic cars, the vast majority of the test is. How long will it be before those accident statistics start to rise as a result of owners desperate to get their car to a show but knowing full well that it requires some attention to the brakes or steering etc?

Perhaps we should use the same argument that Greg Knight MP uses for other areas of legislation...but then I always thought that legislation was passed to protect and improve society....how naive of me :roll:

Then there's the old chestnut of the cut-off date. Why is it considered absurd to impose an MOT on a car built a day before the cut-off date but essential to have an MOT on a car built the day after?

This is a very poorly considered piece of legislation, but then that sums up the current government...oops mustn't get off topic :wink:

Back to the original question then....."what is the government trying to achieve?" This will be the thin edge of the wedge that is driven into the use of these cars on a daily basis. It won't be long before greater restrictions are placed on our use of these cars because they are subject to different rules.

This will not do the historic vehicle community's contribution to the economy any good either. Garages that specialise in work on pre-60s cars will find themselves with less and less business as more owners realise they don't have to repair to MOT standards.

I will continue to drive my cars every day but keep half an eye out for any pre-60s vehicles on the road and give them a very wide berth!

Dave
 
Hi, I have a 1959 SWB Land Rover fitted with a V8. It has on and off over the years been my daily
driver along with the rest of the fleet, the criteria being what's in favour or what's working.

I think in the long term there is going to be a restriction on there use, either mileage or limited
periods of use. I don't know how they will enforce this without an annual check.

In the short term I think insurance will rise unless there is an engineers report or a voluntary MOT.

I think most pre 1960 vehicles are not suited to being used on a daily basis in modern traffic. These
vehicles will suffer problems from not being used.

I wouldn't trust me without someone looking over my shoulder annually and I certainly wouldn't trust
anyone else either.

Colin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top