Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just been reading this on the Stag forum, depending upon how this is adopted or implemented it could mean cars with modifications have problems. I have no problem with an MOT it's the largess it gives governments to control and manipulate what they decide is "original".

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/554763/historic-vehicles-consultation.pdf

 

Mick Richards

Edited by Motorsport Mickey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted, Mick.

 

Whatever is finally implemented, I will continue to present my car for an MOT, in the interest of being able to prove to my insurance company that the vehicle is being maintained in a roadworthy condition - we all know how keen insurers can be to jump through loopholes!

 

Originality could be a problem for some owners, I imagine, so it will be of importance that the definition is not too onerous.

 

I guess the Register will be gathering the views of the membership before responding to the consultation?

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBHVC, of which the TRR is a member, will be acting on behalf of ALL car clubs and all the suppliers & restorers looking after our sort of vehicles.

Don't forget that Rosy Pugh (Rosy Good in earlier times, and once Office manager of the TRR) is nowadays General Manager of the FBHVC and an active member of the Chiltern Group.

Ian Cornish

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: I will continue to present my car for an MOT, . . . . . . that the vehicle is being maintained in a roadworthy condition :Unquote:

 

Hah! You think that! You are not fond of living. Three of the last four second hand vehicles that I have purchased with a fresh MoT have been seriously and significantly UNroadworthy requiring immediate replacement of parts before use on the road. So I think you have to be paranoid about checking other peoples work and not relying on it. Same I guess in many fields of work.

The MoT is a very limited visual inspection without removal of wheels etc so it is not actually the testers fault.

Check for yourself or drive your coffin at your peril.

 

Mind you, you cannot help some people - about 5 years ago, I went down a slip road onto the motorway behind a lady who had a flat'ish and slightly smoking front tyre. I pulled level in lane two tooted and pointed down at her tyre. This elicited and angry look followed by the universally known 'go forth and multiply' sign.

I left at next slip and later heard that the motorway was closed and later that evening of her injury but also the fatality of the one she hit. I know this is not MoT related, but I think the moral is you have to look out for yourself because no-one else is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that it is all a bit of smoke and mirrors and is being conducted under the false pretences of reduction of red tape.

 

The preferred option (3) is also the most complex. I've never understood the rationale behind the 40 year exemption. If you want to use a car on the road then why shouldn't an annual test be a requirement, regardless of age?

 

The original annual testing system wasn't broken and there was no need to fix it. The MoT test for a historic vehicle (I hate that term btw) will necessarily be a truncated version as many of the systems subject to the test aren't fitted. It would be nice if the cost structure reflected this, but not a show-stopper.

 

The assumption that all historic vehicles are lovingly and competently maintained and subject to tiny annual mileages is patently false.

 

The proposal to allow the 40 year MoT exemption, but subject to historic "certification" process is the worst of all worlds. The theoretical exemption might remove the official requirement, but what is to say that the insurance companies might not decide to require some form of proof of roadworthiness (ie an MoT) and put the motorist right back where he started - except he'll have had to go to the trouble (and no doubt expense) of the certification process, as I see no proposal that one might be able to forgo the the certification process in exchange for having to MoT every year (ie a 2 tier system as exists in some mainland Europe countries).

 

This looks to me to be an attempt to justify having a sift through the old car world and weed out the ones deemed to be claiming tax free status under false pretences or as a template for use control.

 

It's also questionable how effective it would be. What is to stop you modifying your car after the certification process? How would they then know? This is a tried and tested method in some continental countries. Or will the certification have to be repeated at intervals - more red tape?

 

My own view is that all vehicles used on the road should be tested every year under the MoT system. Although I've built my car from a heap of bits and rebuilt once or twice since, I do use it alot (and fairly hard) I welcome the MoT as a sanity check and another pair of eyes. If you maintain the car properly, it will pass. If you don't and it fails, it shouldn't be on the road.

 

My suggestion is that everyone should respond to the consultation (in line with my views obviously :P ) in an attempt to influence the decision. I'm just trying to work out how to - the document references an online reply form but I can't seem to find it!

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hah! You think that! You are not fond of living. Three of the last four second hand vehicles that I have purchased with a fresh MoT have been seriously and significantly UNroadworthy requiring immediate replacement of parts before use on the road. So I think you have to be paranoid about checking other peoples work and not relying on it. Same I guess in many fields of work.

The MoT is a very limited visual inspection without removal of wheels etc so it is not actually the testers fault.

Check for yourself or drive your coffin at your peril."

 

Hi, Saggy,

 

I wasn't suggesting that the MOT was a de facto guarantee of roadworthiness, just that without one your insurance company has something else to beat you with should you be unfortunate enough to have an accident.

 

My neck is very precious to me and I will continue to maintain the car in a safe condition, of course, with the MOT as a double check, at a testing station with whom I have a long standing and trusting relationship.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Option 3 is the preferred option"

The difficulty will be in meeting a legal definition of 'substantially changed' listed on p12. That definition could become progressively more restrictive as the testing or accident forensics reveal more faults nationally. There might be future limits imposed on the number or locations welded repairs to a chassis. The definition already appears to forbid a new chassis incorporating second hand parts ( eg TR6 turrets): that vehcle will not achieve 8 points and will be deemed to be unusable on the road. The onus can easily be placed upon the owner to self-certify compliance, and it will be easy for insurers to demand the same. If the owner has made a false declaration insurance will be void.....

 

'Substantially changed' is a movable feast. Kit cars were killed off by progressively more and more restricted definitions. The DoT preferred option could do the same for almost all classics, except for a few 'survivor cars'.

 

Their preferred Option 3 is a nonsense as far as safety goes. Its a one-off certification which will have no impact on the condition of the car a years or so later, when tyres, brakes etc etec could have deteriorated. The cynic in me tells me option 3 is a weasely way to remove classics from the road. Any exemption from annual testing is not going to turn out in our favour, rather the opposite.

 

Peter

Edited by Peter Cobbold
Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 with Peter.

 

Having read the options I think that option 5 is the least bad option, it effectively leaves it as it is now with the non MOT applying to pre 1960 build vehicles.

 

Mick Richards

Edited by Motorsport Mickey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would option 2 be a fair compromise. A safety check every 2 years. Rather than no test. My concern is those options that include the emissions compliance. As this can be changed year on year to be more onerous as other legislation changes. If you look around Europe this is the driver to remove older cars from our cities London will be next. Air Quality is something with it's own legislation that may well feed into wider emissions testing thus the mot regs.

Just a thought.

H

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought. Whichever way this goes the register could create an inspection schedule specific for each model based on the extensive knowledge of its membership. The blank certificates being bought by the garages from the TRR

Garages could inspect a car against this criteria and issue a ............TR GOLD certificate.

Having a certificate would be optional but could offer benefits over and above peace of mind of the current or new owners like discounted insurance.

Rog

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was nothing wrong with the setup prior to the pre 1960 exemption.

 

All vehicles requiring an MOT every year, but the items tested varied with the year of the vehicle, i.e. no emissions test for cars older than 1975 (I think it was ?), sensible testing on brakes, steering etc with regard to how they would have been when the vehicle was new.

 

Bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is all the fuss about here?

 

The worse that can happen is you have to take your car for an annual MOT.

 

I have a 1959 year of manufacture which is MOT exempt yet I choose to have an annual MOT and when I decide to sell next spring the purchaser will ask "when was it MOT'd" as his/her first question.

 

If the worry is about whether you still have to fork out £55 (ish) every year then no further comment is required.

 

If the worry is to do with modification from original then there is nothing in the document which says modifications are not allowed, so you will still be able to install a hyundi diesel engine into a1955 long door TR2 chassis to which has been fitted the rear suspension and axle from a 2016 jaguar and a Moss steering rack conversion whilst the body tub from a imported LHD has been used and re panelled with handmade aluminium front wings.

 

All you would need to do is take it for an annual MOT, so where is the conspiracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worry is the window it opens up for government to expand what THEY decide is a non acceptable modification, once the genii is out of the bottle there will be no putting it back in.

I don't believe any of us objects to the current system, a yearly MOT is no hardship and sometimes a fresh pair of eyes picks up things we may have missed, why would any government pass up the chance of picking up the fees ? only if there is a prize further down the road that may pick up.

 

Mick Richards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannot beat a good conspiracy theory.

 

The government want money to spend. They raise it through taxes and get more in taxes with full employment. The classic car industry supports many thousands of jobs and therefore generates revenue so I doubt things will change.

 

What is worrying is personal agendas for change adopted by environmentalists and their lobbyists towards sources of pollution or socially unacceptable choices like personal transport. They are the ones to watch out for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What is worrying is personal agendas for change adopted by environmentalists and their lobbyists towards sources of pollution or socially unacceptable choices like personal transport. They are the ones to watch out for. "

 

And the way that they will implement those thoughts and agendas is by applying lobby groups against MPs and party leaders who will turn to the Department of transport to identify cars that cannot justify as being in their original historical condition.

 

Mick Richards

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is all the fuss about here?

====

 

If the worry is to do with modification from original then there is nothing in the document which says modifications are not allowed, so you will still be able to install a hyundi diesel engine into a1955 long door TR2 chassis to which has been fitted the rear suspension and axle from a 2016 jaguar and a Moss steering rack conversion whilst the body tub from a imported LHD has been used and re panelled with handmade aluminium front wings.

 

 

That car would be denied roadworthiness on the basis of being 'substantially changed'. It would fail to gather the 8 points required to pass the test listed on page 12 table 2.

The table lists a total of 14 points. The engine swap loses 1, the steering loses 2, the axle 2, the rear supsension another 2, and the alloy panels 5. Points won: 2 for transmission. Points neeed to be allowed on the road: 8.

Its worse than that: it is denied roadworthiness, irrespective of points score, if it incorporates a second hand body : see just above the table.

This is the scheme the DoT prefers.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we arguing in the dark? This report refers to "The Directive", Directive 2014/45/EU, and you will note the last two letters. This is a European initiative, and whatever you think about Europe, the UK is on its way out. There are stringent rules in Europe that prevent any modification of old cars, so they have to stay 'historique'. Maybe this is where the initiative came from, and it's going to be gone. Will the UK Gov want to pursue this, when it has so many other pressing matters to deal with in the Brexit wake?

 

JOhn

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF safety is the DoTs priority then option 1 would surely be the most inclusive: test every vehicle of any age. Option2 with an annual test would catch most common MoT failures , and is the option I prefer. Lack of testing will ensure that nasty classic RTAs increase, they wotn decrease !.

 

The other options all incorporate compliance with a 'substantially altered' clause. What is regarded by DoT as insubstantial today my be revised later. There is no way to police self-certification, and other schemes that are based upon clubs' archivists, would be an admin nightmare for DoT.

 

The DoT fails to explain any link between "substantially altered" and safety: I doubt there is a correlation. So why the DoT focus on 'substantially altered' in their preferred option 3 ? Is it because the DoT suspect very few owners could self-declare that their vehicle is bog standard, and will voluntarily take them off the road? With my cynic hat one , I think the DoT reckon it is inevitable that most owners will make false declarations - often unknowingly if the car's history is vague to them. It would not take many fatal accidents of such self-certified cars for public pressure to demand classics be removed from the road. The state of being 'substantially modified' will be most rigorously identified in a forensic analysis of the car after a fatal accident. If most forensic studies reveal that most classics are illegally on the road, we will all be legislated off the road. Because the accident record shows the self-certification scheme, without testing, has led to a deterioration in safety.

 

This is a clever ploy by DoT. Option 3 removes a safety factor ( the MoT). Lack of testing will lead to an increase in fatal classic RTAs. And that will then be used to kill the self-certification scheme as 'unsafe' due to abuse by owners. The public will be lead to think that most classics are unsafe and the DoT then legislates us all off the road.

 

Peter

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we arguing in the dark? This report refers to "The Directive", Directive 2014/45/EU, and you will note the last two letters. This is a European initiative, and whatever you think about Europe, the UK is on its way out. There are stringent rules in Europe that prevent any modification of old cars, so they have to stay 'historique'. Maybe this is where the initiative came from, and it's going to be gone. Will the UK Gov want to pursue this, when it has so many other pressing matters to deal with in the Brexit wake?

 

JOhn

John,

The report is dated Sept 2016. I suspect the DoT wants to implement the Directive fast, before article 50 is signed. Why? in their eyes we drive unsafe, polluting cars that will earn less and less road tax for the Treasury. The DoT wants us off the road, without actually saying so out loud.Classics are the new kit cars......

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is all the fuss about here?

 

The worse that can happen is you have to take your car for an annual MOT.

 

I have a 1959 year of manufacture which is MOT exempt yet I choose to have an annual MOT and when I decide to sell next spring the purchaser will ask "when was it MOT'd" as his/her first question.

 

If the worry is about whether you still have to fork out £55 (ish) every year then no further comment is required.

 

If the worry is to do with modification from original then there is nothing in the document which says modifications are not allowed, so you will still be able to install a hyundi diesel engine into a1955 long door TR2 chassis to which has been fitted the rear suspension and axle from a 2016 jaguar and a Moss steering rack conversion whilst the body tub from a imported LHD has been used and re panelled with handmade aluminium front wings.

 

All you would need to do is take it for an annual MOT, so where is the conspiracy?

That's how I read the proposals,

 

Sorry Peter but "The definition already appears to forbid a new chassis incorporating second hand parts ( eg TR6 turrets): that vehcle will not achieve 8 points and will be deemed to be unusable on the road. The onus can easily be placed upon the owner to self-certify compliance, and it will be easy for insurers to demand the same. If the owner has made a false declaration insurance will be void....." doesn't follow from the document that I read. No mention of unusable on the road, just that it wouldn't qualify for the MOT exemption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how I read the proposals,

 

Sorry Peter but "The definition already appears to forbid a new chassis incorporating second hand parts ( eg TR6 turrets): that vehcle will not achieve 8 points and will be deemed to be unusable on the road. The onus can easily be placed upon the owner to self-certify compliance, and it will be easy for insurers to demand the same. If the owner has made a false declaration insurance will be void....." doesn't follow from the document that I read. No mention of unusable on the road, just that it wouldn't qualify for the MOT exemption.

Malcolm. I disagree with that intepretation, it is open to abuse. Say a classic fails its MoT. The owner then self-declares it is a VHI which meets the criteria of not being 'substantially modified'. The car, now re-defined as a VHI goes back on the road. Untested. There is no policing at all.

I dont believe that is the DoTs intention to create that loophole. .

Peter

Edited by Peter Cobbold
Link to post
Share on other sites
This may not be a popular view but I believe all road vehicles, regardless of age, should be subject to an annual MoT test. I didn't agree with the exemption of pre-1960 cars introduced a few years ago.


Most classic owners are DIY mechanics who carry out most of their own maintenance. It therefore makes sense to have the vehicle checked by a trained, qualified professional annually. Even the best intentioned owners may either make a mistake during maintenance or miss a safety critical component that's deteriorating.


In the event of a classic being involved in a fatal RTA, it will be forensically examined and any defects found. It would only take a few such incidents before the media and government consider classics unsafe and move to ban them or restrict use. And some fatal accidents might have been avoided if the MoT test had shown a defect.


MoT tests for all I say, Option 1 in the consultation document.



Nigel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.