Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms UK MOT consultation

At long last...

Released today

MOT consultation


Issue of defining historic interest is fudged in my opinion. Basically the 8 point rule as per DVLA rules on for registering radically altered vehicles with I think the modification that anything with a second-hand or altered chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame; is deemed to have less than 8 points...

Bear in mind, a fair few three wheelers are not on their original chassis as for a while, some dealers offered a service exchange. Same or similar would apply to other makes and models I guess.

I was going to do the reply before posting this, but had to bomb out as somehow, we need to tell the government how to their job... All of the 'options' are in some way unsatisfactory as with their preferred options, a 142 mph E type would be exempt. I really do not wish to meet one on the road!

Any bright ideas on how to define the issue of historic-interest for them?

Do please circulate this widely, we have till the 2nd November.

Perhaps our best bet is to get the FBHVC to respond on our behalf?

sound like a sensible idea to me Brian

James

They'll answer - hopefully, it's not on their website. But, even if they do, I really want ordinary folk to respond too. It's frightening how few responses such thing often generate.

I'm a bit pro-active these days on motoring changes as the FBHVC monumentally cocked up the response to the European 3rd driving licence directive and later claimed kudos for one aspect - when they missed it's impact on three wheelers completely. The first person to tell them was me... And their initial reaction was to tell me I was wrong...

Thank-you for posting.

This has been a long time coming. As a full time MOT tester i'd make the following observations -

1. The basis for the recommendation about 40 years as opposed to 30 years seems to revolve around the failure rates. This was the case put when pre 1960 were removed from testing as well. Pre 1960 cars didn't fail very often - Govt assume this is because they are so well maintained. WRONG!. Younger testers unsure of the particular vehicle would give benefit of the doubt to older cars - often incorrectly = lower fail rate. Also testers tend to be more generous to older vehicles - " get it fixed before next year" kind of thing = lower fail rate. So the figures which they base the decisions on are not accurate. However-
I don't think the current MOT industry can actually cope with older cars anyway - so few testers seem to have a clue when it comes to the older stuff - not just austin 7s but Morris Minors and cars of the 1960s as well.There just isn't the pool of skilled people coming along to do it.
I'm sure they will go for option 3 - exemption rolling @ 40 years like the tax disc. Good thing? I worry that a non-tested "classic" will end up causing a road death and it could limit our right to use old cars.

I tested a 1972 landrover today. Owned by a local old chap of 70plus years who asked me to be kind to it!
Not only was the petrol tank leaking but the brakes pulled violently to the right - proper across the road stuff. He knew of this but couldn't get the drum off to fix it and assumed it would be Ok because he didn't use it much..... No MOT and he'd be using this on the public road - an accident waiting to happen. His mind set i'm afraid is all too common.

As an aside - although we voted to leave the EU we are still full members and our govt will continue to fully implement eu laws. Democracy? The same people in suits are likely to allow that old landrover free reign to put others lives at risk.

Rant over.

My gut reaction is that MOT exemption is a mistake and will have unforseen consequences.

But I also accept that older cars need experts in old cars as testers. At least old cars don't do much mileage, and it would be easy to say lets do it on mileage covered but old cars are so easy to clock, so that won't work.

This is a good point. Perhaps cars over 25 years old need a specialist MOT centre (like some classes do already).

I agree. My car would be exempt under the 40 year rule but I'd like to see at least an annual test for brakes, lights, steering, and general safety. I always regard the present test as being good value for having the car assessed by someone independent.

I don't see the logic of the substantially altered elements of the proposals. Many (most?) 40 year+ cars could well have been modified either in period or recently.

As per Andymot's post there needs to be some sort of check on basic safety so I vote for option 2 with an annual check.

This removes any subjective assessment of what constitutes a "substantial" change but preserves the independent check on basic vehicle safety.

Absolutely, and I see no reason why old cars should be exempt from an emissions check, too. Clearly they can't be expected to meet modern emissions standards, but neither should they be permitted to spew out clouds of noxious fumes due to poor maintenance.

The current arrangements seem absolutely fine to me, and I see no pressing reason to change them at all.

I am deeply suspicious of this 'reducing regulation' pitch. I reckon it's more about setting old cars up for a fall - they are looking for an excuse to say "Look, these things are dirty and dangerous, they should be banned altogether" - or at least to severely curtail the mileages we are allowed to do. Reducing safety checks will increase the likelihood of accidents, and this will give them the ammunition they are looking for.

Remember these are politicians and bureaucrats we're talking about here - and they will be under pressure from motor manufacturers keen to ensure we are forced to go out and buy shiny new cars as soon as our old ones are more than a few years old.