This maybe worrying

[Alec Pringle]

All road vehicles should be subject to annual MoT test.

 

Period.

 

End of discussion.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

[RobH]

Is everyone reading this wrongly? It seems to me they are saying that a car with sufficient points will be eligible for exemption from the test - those with fewer points will need testing.

Quote : "We will also have to introduce a definition for ‘substantial change’ if we wish to continue exempting VHIs from testing"

 

Perhaps its me but I can't see anything there about not being allowed on the road.

[Malcolm Tatton]

Is everyone reading this wrongly? It seems to me they are saying that a car with sufficient points will be eligible for exemption from the test - those with fewer points will need testing.

Quote : "We will also have to introduce a definition for ‘substantial change’ if we wish to continue exempting VHIs from testing"

 

Perhaps its me but I can't see anything there about not being allowed on the road.

That is exactly how I read it and what I tried to express earlier.

[Peter Cobbold]

Is everyone reading this wrongly? It seems to me they are saying that a car with sufficient points will be eligible for exemption from the test - those with fewer points will need testing.

Quote : "We will also have to introduce a definition for ‘substantial change’ if we wish to continue exempting VHIs from testing"

 

Perhaps its me but I can't see anything there about not being allowed on the road.

So one interpretation is either it is self-declared as 'substantially unchanged' or it has to be tested. If it is neither it will be off the road.

But testing is rigorous, whereas self-certification of no 'substantial change' is entirely un-policed. Easy to guess which will be the more popular option, bearing in mind that most classics are rebuilt 'as original'. Our problems will arise when these self-exempted vehicles start killing the public. Without MoT testing that is inevitable. At that point the public outcry against any classic being allowed on the road will be political dynamite.

There will be a sizable number of owners who will claim, quite possibly legitimately, to be exempt from testing who have no idea how dangerous their car might be. Classic cars are nowadays often a 'lifestyle choice' and those of us who have been getting our hands grubby for decades are in a declining minority. A minority of TRR members use the forum.

 

Our modifed TRs may well fall into a small minority that require testing, but we risk being legislated of the road along with the self-certified 'not substantially modified' death traps. It will take a few years for untested cars to fail catastroohically, but fail they will and it only takes a high profile failure to sway public opinion against us all. I can see the headlines: "Classic car deathtraps are untested and dont pay any road tax and are Killing Us. Get them off our roads !! "

 

To me annual testing without any exemptions is the only way to ensure as far as posible we are not putting fellow road-users at risk. And to continue to be pemitted to use the road.

 

Peter

Edited September 24, 2016 by Peter Cobbold

[Andy Moltu]

I suppose the problem is deciding what MOT test to apply and the the testing standards of a modern Audi of 2013 vintage compared to an Austin of 1933 vintage clearly have to be different but as the test for ever more complex vehicles become ever more complex there is scope for inexperienced MOT testers failing to understand what test should be applied to an older vehicle.

 

The London swelling anti-car lobby will always look for ways to get any car off the road however little impact it may have in real terms and we should be rightly cautious in looking at hidden agendas in proposed legislation.

 

How many vehicles of a certain age were specials and thus no factory specification exists? So an Austin 7 based special could well be deemed a "Bitza" and what about say a Grinnall V8?

[acaie]

All road vehicles should be subject to annual MoT test.

 

Period.

 

End of discussion.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

+1

Those of us who remember life before the MoT test recall some of the death traps that ran around. Most of them arose from people running cars without adequate funds to maintain them properly. The age of the cars is no reason to allow this to happen again.

 

Best wishes

Al

[Peter Cobbold]

I suppose the problem is deciding what MOT test to apply and the the testing standards of a modern Audi of 2013 vintage compared to an Austin of 1933 vintage clearly have to be different but as the test for ever more complex vehicles become ever more complex there is scope for inexperienced MOT testers failing to understand what test should be applied to an older vehicle.

 

I suppose that would point legislators in the direction of specialist test centres for old vehicles.... and an enhanced testing fee to match.

Self-certification and test-exemption will look even more attractive !

 

Peter

[Hamish]

You can't rely on Brexit sorting this

'On 23 June, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in the future once the UK has left the EU.'

 

Whilst all this is under the safety argument I believe emissions are a major driver.

 

The other factors that have been mentioned is the MOT standard. Will they set the requirements so strictly that it hard for the old cars to pass.

Please don't forget it's not just our TR period cars. It's all older historic cars the Brighton run cars onwards

Edited September 24, 2016 by Hamish

[Red 6]

I cannot believe I am again contributing to this thread, so to no one in particular I say "have you not read the document?"!!!

 

The document refers to exemption from MOT's for old cars THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS IF YOU READ IT.

 

It does not refer to banning modified cars. What it proposes is that if the car was manufactured before a certain date and is as it came from the factory, and allows a certain lee way on that as well, the the owner does not need to have an annual MOT and further states that if the owner of the said car wants to take that car for an MOT then they can. (£55 thank you).

 

I hope that has saved you the bother of actually reading the document

[Peter Cobbold]

I cannot believe I am again contributing to this thread, so to no one in particular I say "have you not read the document?"!!!

 

The document refers to exemption from MOT's for old cars THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS IF YOU READ IT.

 

It does not refer to banning modified cars. What it proposes is that if the car was manufactured before a certain date and is as it came from the factory, and allows a certain lee way on that as well, the the owner does not need to have an annual MOT and further states that if the owner of the said car wants to take that car for an MOT then they can. (£55 thank you).

 

I hope that has saved you the bother of actually reading the document

 

Most of us are thinking one step ahead of the document. It is the potential effects of allowing untested classics on the roads that concern me and others. It will only take an untested car to fail and wipe out bus queue of school children, or some such tragedy, to see all our cars off the road. It is naive to think otherwise. Testing should be mandatory for all road vehicles, no exceptions.

 

Those of us who followed the FIVA Turin recommendations a few years ago will recognise recycled elements in the DoT document. FIVA were proposing that non-historic vehicles should be legislated off the road and only truly historic vehicles, what we would now call 'survivor' cars, would be allowed on the road. Testing would not be required for this tiny number of, effectively, museum pieces. Brussels ran with FIVA partly because the eastern bloc nations have large number of cr88py old vehicles, classics in age but not in condition. FBHVC fought FIVA/Brussles, and some of us wrote to our MEPs. But the DoT document we now see looks to me like a reprise of FIVA's scoring system. One of the FIVA Board specialises in the microscopic analysis of paint layers on historic vehicles.....the idea that any of our classic cars plastered in two-pack would meet her definition of a VHI is obviously anathema to her.

 

If we sit back and dont respond to the DoT consultation or, worse, asssume we are not threatened with being driven off the road we will have only ourselves to blame. If testing is not kept mandatory we will become vulnerable to public pressure to get those dangerous, stinking, polluting old bangers off the road............irrespective of what's in the DoT document.

 

Peter

[Motorsport Mickey]

+1 Peter, that's how I and I think many others read it as being, thin edge of the wedge.

 

Nobody ever made a mistake underestimating a politicians underhandedness when presented with a document or act which allowed them to use it for another purpose; just consider how many of the councils use the instigation of "Ripa" to spy on council tenants for various offences.

 

Mick Richards

Edited September 25, 2016 by Motorsport Mickey

[Red 6]

Righto, so the link was just a red herring, this thread is really about something that has not happened and if it does it wont be relevant to the link in any case.

 

I for one cannot understand the rationale for exemption in the first place, regardless of how few as a % of cars of a certain age fail their MOT compared to newer cars.

 

Just owning a classic car does not mean the owner is a Saint and looks after it in fact I would go so far as the promulgate the position that where maintenance is required on a classic car "if a jobs worth doing it's worth doing as cheaply as possible because it is only an occasional use sunny day car" which in some sections of the CC owning community might be a popular adage, which plays into Peter's scenario of bus ques of children being taken out by miserly classic car owners who have failed to maintain their vehicle to an appropriate standard of operation and do not have an MOT because their car is exempt.

 

I am reminded of a particular TR5 I bought, with an MOT, where I pulled out the seatbelt mount complete with a section of inner cill. The chap had owned the car for many years and claimed it was meticulously maintained.

 

Yes I for one believe in continuing with Alec's pronouncement paraphrased as "All cars must have an MOT to be driven on the road."

 

In the real world there is a move afoot for biennial MOT's for all cars, due apparently to the reliability of new cars.

[Alec Pringle]

The document does, I suggest, need to be perused in the context of the preceding EU discussions - these were prolonged, to say the very least, and the disparity of views put forward by the various national contributors was extraordinary.

 

No question that the EU preferred view of Vehicles of Historic Interest is very restricted indeed, focuses on 'originality' to excess, and quite explicit that such vehicles should not be in normal useage. Restricted to special occasion driving, in short. At best.

 

Equally the EU view of modified vehicles, whether or not of a historic age, is resolutely at odds with our UK traditions - if the EU had its collective way, many of our TRs would not be allowed on the road at all, let alone as VHI candidates.

 

I'm not given to conspiracy theories as a rule, but in this instance I would agree about thin ends of wedges . . . . multiple wedges, that is.

 

I agree simply because I have in the past spent an inordinate amount of time studying the detail of the EU discussions in progress, and of the evolution of FIVA viewpoints on VHI. These well meaning folks are in the business of preserving our cultural heritage, actually driving the blessed cars is the last thing on their minds.

 

The only way to sidestep all this continental crapology is to ignore all the VHI exemption possibilities and to revert to MoT testing ALL vehicles, and as before incorporate adequate concession and discretion when it comes to the fine detail of cars over, for example, 30 years. That way we legitimately render the Directive irrelevant . . . . . and bugger Brussels.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Edited September 25, 2016 by Alec Pringle

[Paul Down]

Modern cars are increasingly reliant on complex electronic systems to function, the MOT test is constantly updated to take account of these developments and I have heard it mentioned that in the not too distant future some parts of the MOT test will be done completely electronically with the testing machine talking digitally to the vehicle with little operator intervention. This scenario is so far removed from historic vehicles that perhaps a simpler safety test covering: structural integrity, lighting, suspension, braking etc. would be far more appropriate.

 

I agree with Alec, that regular testing of all vehicles should be mandatory, but perhaps where mileage is very low say less than 1000 miles annually a biennial test could suffice.

 

Yes, this particular Directive does not mention compulsory mileage for Classics but do you trust politicians?

 

Do not forget the ongoing DVLA saga concerning Classic vehicles and especially "Specials" i.e.altered vehicles. A VSCC member was about to re-body his completely original 1930's Austin 7, with a replica body and the DVLA refused to renew his age related registration plate and would only issue a "Q" plate with all that entails.

 

In that respect I feel that the DVLA seemed to have overlooked one of the worst offenders, Land Rovers. There are numerous coil sprung V8 LRS running around but registered as Series 11 and 11A's so enjoying tax free and no MOT status but bear scant resemblance to the period vehicles.

[rhino_mac]

All of this will probably be cobblers in about 2 years anyway. We won't be part of the EU.

 

I must admit though, why are we exempting old cars from their MOT's. I agree with Red 6 - a lot of the people I have spoken to at shows are proud in the extreme of their bodges that only cost 20p but keep the car running in a forward motion. In fact, some of the professional bodges I've seen (on my car I might add - "wonky body, I'll just chop that body mount off and stick 2" of washers in the other side. That will be £1000 please") are pretty extreme and I'd want them picked up in an MOT.

 

My car is a '59, but it'll go in for its MOT in October when it's due.

[Andy Moltu]

All of this will probably be cobblers in about 2 years anyway. We won't be part of the EU.

 

Be careful what you wish for, politicians are easily lead by plausible sounding lobbyists, and ours are some of the more stupid.

The EU, whatever it's many faults, did to an extent buffer the extremes. In this country we have a habit of producing legislation with flaws and rigidly implementing it.

[stuart]

We have been here before several times over the last few years and nothing real has happened yet. I am still of the mind that test them very year no matter what is still the best option and all of my customers with cars old enough to be exempt know that.

Stuart.

[RobH]

Agreed Stuart, all should be tested - but it has to be the right proportional test which makes allowance for older engineering. There is another looming problem of the economics and of who is going to do it. Testing stations will have invested in all the new automatic kit for the forthcoming EU changes which just cannot be applied to old cars and they are not going to be interested in retaining a capability special for us because the customers requiring it are so few. Even now my 1930 car won't fit on the modern ramps in the local stations because the wheelbase is too narrow, so they have to have another means of waggling the wheels etc. - will they still have the space, skills and interest in doing that in the future for the standard test fee?

 

Perhaps the government would have to set up specialised testers just for us but if so, how many will there be to make it viable? Could we end up having to travel hundreds of miles just to get to the nearest approvd old-vehicle test centre? Its probably considerations like that which makes exemption a favoured option for the DfT

[Peter Cobbold]

Agreed Stuart, all should be tested - but it has to be the right proportional test which makes allowance for older engineering. There is another looming problem of the economics and of who is going to do it. Testing stations will have invested in all the new automatic kit for the forthcoming EU changes which just cannot be applied to old cars and they are not going to be interested in retaining a capability special for us because the customers requiring it are so few. Even now my 1930 car won't fit on the modern ramps in the local stations because the wheelbase is too narrow, so they have to have another means of waggling the wheels etc. - will they still have the space, skills and interest in doing that in the future for the standard test fee?

 

Perhaps the government would have to set up specialised testers just for us but if so, how many will there be to make it viable? Could we end up having to travel hundreds of miles just to get to the nearest approvd old-vehicle test centre? Its probably considerations like that which makes exemption a favoured option for the DfT

That must be the underlying reason the DoT's prefered option is to abolish testing of classics. They dont want the hassle of setting up specialist centres, or of commissioning them from the private sector.

 

I have some difficulty in thinking that moderns will be tested by simply plugging in diagnostic software. Tyres, rust, accident/steering damage, wheels...will all need to be inspected ....even on electric vehicles or self-driving cars. I cant see that being automated.

 

Peter

[oldtuckunder]

 

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

 

 

+1

 

I like to think I maintain my classics to a high standard, but even I know occasionally that because I know something needs fixing, and that I can fix it, sometimes it drops down the priority list, a pending MOT ensures that they are done and I check everything else. I also highly value someone taking a second look at what I have done, they will quite often poke and prod at things that can slip off ones radar.

 

I see nothing particularly wrong with the concept of specialist classic car MOT stations, by self selection I sort of already use one as whilst they would do a modern, 90% of their business is classics. Likewise I would never take a classic to somewhere like Kwickfat. I don't see why a classic MOT station would need to or want to charge more for an MOT.

 

Alan (If its on the road it should be annually tested)

[oldtuckunder]

Respond online here - scroll down about halfway and click on "respond online"

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

 

 

 

Been there done that!

[Peter Cobbold]

Respond online here - scroll down about halfway and click on "respond online"

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

 

If you don't do it, you've no case to moan about the outcome......

 

Nick

Done.

Peter

[Lebro]

Done

 

Bob.

[monty]

Done.

[Bodiam]

Done