Pre 1970's Cars To Be MOT Exempt?

[wookie]

When the question was raised (by someone ) about what would happen if your old vehicle didn't meet their criteria, the answer was pretty much along the lines of "hand in your v5 and buy a compliant classic vehicle instead".

Ah, sounds like snobbery to me !

"We don't consider your crummy little car a classic, so we are going to redefine classic to mean just the cars that we own and nothing else and by doing that we'll make our cars even more collectable and therefore valuable."

Having said that I went to the 1000 Classic Cars at Cholmondeley Castle the other weekend and I have to say I disagree with their criteria which is anything 15 years or older, I don't own a single vehicle that is less than 15 years old but I don't consider my wife's Pug 306 or my Hilux pickup a classic and I certainly wouldn't display either of them at a show even thou they are both in better nick than some of the entrants on show.

You get the same sort of rubbish with shooting organisations wanting to lobby government as to what is licenceable and not, over here anyway. The jobsworth know-all, creeping jesus type."

That reminds me a few years ago we were at a show and this know-all came round pointing out all the non-period bits on our cars and generally being a pain in the derriere, so one us said "Ok let's have a look at your car, show us how it should be done" to which he replied "Oh I haven't got one" at which point he was told "Well once you've got one and you've spent your time and money keeping it on the road you'll see why we've done some of the changes from originality, until then Sod Off"

 

[dannyp]

mot exemption for classics isn't really a good idea imo.

tbh the mot test is the cheep bit of running a classic car and keeping it in good order, i know of somone who bought a morris traveler to avoid mot costs, stoped driveign it when pointed out the back axl was held on by not much at all any more and it looked like it was tring its best to fall off. there are plenty of disel hatchbacks that are much much cheeper motoring

 

[wookie]

mot exemption for classics isn't really a good idea imo.

tbh the mot test is the cheep bit of running a classic car and keeping it in good order,

Owning various old stuff that falls into the MOT exempt category I'll agree with you, the tax-exempt bit it the bit worth having, but it's not exactly hard to keep a classic in good enough condition to pass an MOT test.

The joke with MOT'ing a classic is that it's done in 20 minutes but the garage still has to allow the full testing time, my jeep test used to go something like this.... wipers - No, washers - No, indicators - No, emissions - No, seatbelts - No, horn - Yes ... finally something we can test

honestly a tank of fuel doesn't go that far @16mpg...

Oooh 16 mpg that sounds interesting, whatcha got ?

 

[malcolm]

I bought a new 15 year old Peugeot 406 Coupe last weekend. I reckon that is a classic, but nobody else does. Fine by me as that made it cheap to buy.

Straying from the point there. When you have a bunch of cars it takes a lot of time taking them for an MOT every 300 miles. Some sort of longer period based on limited mileage insurance would suit me so long as there was also the option to insure and MOT as a modern car if I wanted to do more miles.

 

[langy]

The pre60 no mot was probably the worst thing that could of happened to us pre60 owners, thin edge of the wedge.

I obviously see a lot of pre60 owners cars and many havnt got a clue how to keep them roadworthy, not good !!!

Although pre60 is not exempt the owner is liable to keep in road worthy condition, if not they will do ya

 

[KemppiFrog]

I bought a new 15 year old Peugeot 406 Coupe last weekend. I reckon that is a classic, but nobody else does. Fine by me as that made it cheap to buy
.

One of the most elegant cars on the road. Quite a few are bought for the USA and even Australia. Several well polished ones around here.
KF

 

[wookie]

The pre60 no mot was probably the worst thing that could of happened to us pre60 owners, thin edge of the wedge.

I obviously see a lot of pre60 owners cars and many havnt got a clue how to keep them roadworthy, not good !!!

Although pre60 is not exempt the owner is liable to keep in road worthy condition, if not they will do ya

The trouble is now, first they have to actually catch you to prove it's unroadworthy, at least with the MOT test it was inspected once a year to check it reached the minimum required to be allowed on the road.

What always got me was goods vehicles being exempt, I used to own one, but just fill in a V112G form and tick option 33 (pre January1960) and bingo your exempt from the MOT test, they are usually harder to drive than a car and I'd expect they would cause a lot more damage in an accident but you can drive one for years without anyone checking it's basically safe.... Madness utter madness.

I've known some owners get banned from a show because their vehicle was unsafe, but I bet that doesn't happen much.

I personally think it's not about reducing red-tape but ultimately trying to ban us all from the roads.

I'm happy about being Road Tax exempt because I usually cover 1000 miles or so per vehicle per year so I'm hardly wearing the roads out plus the government gets enough money off me in tax from the petrol I use at 15 to 20mpg.

 

[Rannsachair]

Looking at the new proposals I would be ok with the rolling 40 year exemption. I have 6 bikes: 1954, 1956, 1969, 1972, 1991 and 1992 and my nearest mot station is about a 2 hour round trip away. Its handy my oldest bikes do not need trailed away and my 69 and 72 bikes are luck to do 1500 miles a year, would make my life much easier.

I think my last failure was 5 years ago for headlamp beam too high and blown bulb on the brake light - which happened on the way up. Adjusting the beam on a 69 bonnie takes seconds. I think I got the tester on a bad day. Previous failure was for not having a rear reflector and tester not accepting that the reflector built into the standard tail lamp was adequate!
Silly wee reflector added below no. plate, note black plate legal as it is a 1972 build bike first registered in 1974:

Then there is trying to explain how to start and operate the lights on a 72 BMW R75 - combined ignition switch and light switch on headlamp:

I do feel at times that my experience of rebuilding and riding bikes for the last 40 years gives me a bit more insight into my bikes than the average tester, so I would be happy to save the multiple annual trips.

The few folk local to me with old bikes and cars are enthusiasts and by far the majority are well looked after, so the risk is low.

 

[zx9]

@Rannsachair so the MOT station insisted you fitted a reflector too small to count as a rear reflector to the registration plate, making the registration plate non standard / not for road use

 

[slim_boy_fat]

So, to me the MOT just means 35quid and a morning leaning against a wall in the testing station - and a very slight 'in case I missed anything' if I haven't owned the vehicle for very long. Oh, it's also an opportunity to have a look underneath without laying on the floor.

Aye, same here.

I have on occasion operated the lights, steering lock, wiper/washers etc to help out the tester - but I don't get a discount and it costs more than you pay........

 

[Rannsachair]

@Rannsachair so the MOT station insisted you fitted a reflector too small to count as a rear reflector to the registration plate, making the registration plate non standard / not for road use

They even supplied and fitted it for £2

 

[wookie]

So, to me the MOT just means 35quid and a morning leaning against a wall in the testing station - and a very slight 'in case I missed anything' if I haven't owned the vehicle for very long. Oh, it's also an opportunity to have a look underneath without laying on the floor.

But here's the catch - I'm very strange and quite far removed from the average modern motorist.

Indeed, it's far easier to have a good look whilst it's up on the ramp than lying on your back at home. I'm also strange and unlike the average motorist in that I do all my own maintenance and record in a book what work I've done and what parts I've fitted with dates, mileage etc, that way I can keep track of what I've done to each vehicle. Having 4 cars and 2 bikes to look after I would soon forget something if I didn't write it all down.

Because of that, I don't think MOTs should be abolished regardless of vehicle age or distance covered between tests, nor do I think the testing period should be extended beyond a year. In fact, I think new cars having a 3 year test free period should be scrapped and it should be annual from the day it rolls off the forecourt.

I'd like to see it being every 12 months or 12,000 miles whichever comes soonest, and as for new cars the testing should start when they leave the factory not when they are finally sold, who knows what's perished whilst it's sat around waiting for a buyer.

The 3 year test free period for new cars is stupid and dangerous, statistics show there is a larger percentage of 3 year old cars failing their first MOT each year than classics cars going for their annual test ever did.

 

[Burdekin]

Older cars should require an MOT, they are the ones with possibly the most major issues; major rust issues, worn brakes, poor suspension and rich carbs etc. It's just not correct that classics are well maintained, every one I've had dealings with in the UK has had issues due to poor maintenance over the years. Things were done on the cheap when it wasn't economical to fix properly. Many a dodgy classic out there.

 

[CompoSimmonite]

The 3 year test free period for new cars is stupid and dangerous, statistics show there is a larger percentage of 3 year old cars failing their first MOT each year than classics cars going for their annual test ever did.

Our Metro failed it's first MOT at 3 years old despite only doing 14,000 miles and full service history (we owned from 6 months old) on quite a few serious items such as loose steering column pinch bolt, leaking rear wheel cylinders and hand brake only working on one side.

 

[wookie]

Older cars should require an MOT, they are the ones with possibly the most major issues; major rust issues, worn brakes, poor suspension and rich carbs etc.

I'll agree that all cars should have to have an MOT but it's unfair to tar all classics with the same brush, there are as many if not more dodgy "modern" cars around as there are classics with problems. My 1942 jeep is in far better condition than my 1995 hilux pickup because I did a "Nut & Bolt" restoration on it some years back, but the pickup will still pass an MOT, which is safer ? After all look at CompoSimmonite's post which I've quoted below....

Our Metro failed it's first MOT at 3 years old despite only doing 14,000 miles and full service history (we owned from 6 months old) on quite a few serious items such as loose steering column pinch bolt, leaking rear wheel cylinders and hand brake only working on one side.

Wasn't one of the arguments put forward as to why the 3 year MOT exemption would be safe was that the vehicle will be getting regular servicing from the dealer during it's first 3 years ? If so then VOSA should be investigating the dealers for failing to maintain the car in a safe manner if it fails it's first MOT.

 

[keithski122]

I don't agree with the argument that classic car owner keep their cars in tip top/ safe condition.Had a healey at work the other day, looked very nice but the handbrake mount was rusty that the lever was all over the place, not that it mattered as it didn't work anyway.Oh and the rear box was about to fall off.Lots of these cars look nice but delve in deeper than the shiney paint and you'll find all sorts of faults.

 

[malcolm]

Most classic owners don't agree with the MOT exempt thing. They had MOT exempt going on in France and then changed it to a 5 year MOT. That was before they introduced MOT exempt in the UK. A lot of cheap cars came onto the market that had suffered from either no mechanicing or even worse - French mechanicing. My longest ever project car is one of those - I bought it 6 years ago and still haven't taken it in for an MOT, though to be fair I've not been working very hard on it.

I had a chat with my uncle about this last weekend. He reckoned before MOTs came in he used to drive around in Ford Pops with no floors or brakes. He thought the accident rate wasn't too bad because people learned to drive around the faults and would leave a bit more time to stop if the brakes didn't work. Probably wouldn't work these days though.

 

[wookie]

Go out today and see how far you can go on normal roads without touching your brakes...

Quite a long way actually, at least around here I can (North Wales), but then outside of the summer season we've got quiet roads that are a pleasure to drive on, you can drive for miles on an 'A' road/dual carriageway without touching your brakes if you look ahead and anticipate what other drivers are going to do and don't drive around up the chuff of the car in front and before you suggest it I am by no means a slow driver not even by North Wales standards (who to be honest make the Italians look like a bunch of Sunday drivers)

Mind you I was taught to lift off and use engine braking when going to a lower speed limit area, rather than the standard way these days which is to drive within 5yards of the speed sign and then slamming the anchors on. But I'll grant you that a lot of that is because of quiet roads, I've spent years going up and down the M6 by Preston and there is no way you can drive there without using your brakes because if you leave a reasonable gap some di*khead would fill it.