1959 LandRover VIN tags quadruple in value

[scaryoldcortina]

The underside of a pre-60 presented for test today....

 

Other than my professional worries about loss of trade (which in my case could be significant) we are talking about a very small number of cars doing a tiny amount of mileage. I can count the daily driven pre 60 cars that I know of locally on one hand.

 

Having said that, most roadworthy pre-60 cars are in the hands of people to whom the test fee is not a big deal, and I bet most of them get a test anyway just for the sake of it.

[Lankytim]

What you forget, especially if you're regularly driving 80s and 90s classics is that old cars of the generation we're talking about need to be driven properly, you need to plan ahead when you want to stop, etc. I wouldn't dream of hammering down the road in a 1950s Vauxhall and expect it to handle or stop like a 1980s BMW.

 

 

No, I haven't forgotten. Historic truck and buses tend to be owned by people who know how to maintain them and know not to take them out when in an unroadworthy condition (although I still think they need to be MOT'd) On the otherhand while most classics are owned by "sensible" people many old cars end up being "hit with the stick", poorly modified, poorly maintained by someone with a budget of £15 or just end up in the ownership of some clueless twat. We will end up relying on the police pulling them over to make sure they are up to standard rather than having a yearly test. No matter how dilligent the owner is, things like rusty brake pipes, sloppy balljoints and hidden grot can go unnoticed. The whole idea sounds like a nightmare.

 

If you think your pre 1960 motor is so good, whats wrong with £20-£50 a year just to make sure?

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

If they wanted to reduce bureaucracy they could give up on this recently introduced bureaucracy-increasing idea of making it a crime to have a taxed but uninsured car in your garage. And fook off the need to re-sorn every year. Twats.

 

Didn't they already do the SORN thing?

[warren t claim]

I can see this badly affecting the classic banger community.

[messerschmitt owner]

Lankytim

 

I'd happily spend £54 on a class 3 MoT if only I could find an inspector that could do them, a station with a Tapley meter and someone that didn't want to stick my car with 8in wheels onto the rollers and expect it to stop the blooming things with its cable-operated brakes and that understood that my motorbike numberplates are totally legal, as is my single orange brake light and who understands that my car has to have the four tail lamps as the inner pair are too close together for British regulations. Oh, he'd also need to understand that the handbrake on my car is pretty much unique in that it works by pressing down on the foot brake pedal and pulling a ratchet lever at the same time to pull the handbrake on and that, therefore, my handbrake works on all three wheels ...

[Mr_Bo11ox]

So your objection is one of lack of awareness of your particular car, rather than the principle of testing (or not) older vehicles.

[pbottomley]

I can see this badly affecting the classic banger community.

 

 

I dont, car will still be road legal AFTER a race !!!!

[dollywobbler]

So your objection is one of lack of awareness of your particular car, rather than the principle of testing (or not) older vehicles.

 

Indeed. I have to say, find a better MOT tester! They are out there. One thing I hate about moving house is having to find them. Some relish something a bit different.

[Guest]

I reckon that I should be exempt from MOTs because I maintain most of my vehicles to a decent standard. Problem?

[warren t claim]

I reckon that I should be exempt from MOTs because I maintain most of my vehicles to a decent standard. Problem?

 

Not at all. Likewise I'm exempt from paying tax because I was born before 1973.

[messerschmitt owner]

So your objection is one of lack of awareness of your particular car, rather than the principle of testing (or not) older vehicles.

no, it's finding a station that does class 3 tests!

[scaryoldcortina]

Lankytim

 

I'd happily spend £54 on a class 3 MoT if only I could find an inspector that could do them, a station with a Tapley meter and someone that didn't want to stick my car with 8in wheels onto the rollers and expect it to stop the blooming things with its cable-operated brakes and that understood that my motorbike numberplates are totally legal, as is my single orange brake light and who understands that my car has to have the four tail lamps as the inner pair are too close together for British regulations. Oh, he'd also need to understand that the handbrake on my car is pretty much unique in that it works by pressing down on the foot brake pedal and pulling a ratchet lever at the same time to pull the handbrake on and that, therefore, my handbrake works on all three wheels ...

 

I'll do it!

[Morgan84]

The state of many older classic cars is pretty shocking;many are worn out and not fit to be on the roads.That is why many are stuck in museams as they can't be used - the dropping of MOT test will allow many dangerous vehicles back onto the roads,which I'm pretty sure will lead to accidents.Yes,it's only a small percentage of vehicles on the road,but one accident is one too many in my eyes.

 

One point - for insurance of certain classics,surely they will have to have some sort of test/inspection to prove the condition they are in,if they have agreed valuations ?

[scaryoldcortina]

The state of many older classic cars is pretty shocking;many are worn out and not fit to be on the roads.That is why many are stuck in museams as they can't be used - the dropping of MOT test will allow many dangerous vehicles back onto the roads,which I'm pretty sure will lead to accidents.Yes,it's only a small percentage of vehicles on the road,but one accident is one too many in my eyes.

 

One point - for insurance of certain classics,surely they will have to have some sort of test/inspection to prove the condition they are in,if they have agreed valuations ?

 

As mentioned in the answer to question 6' date=' the Government is giving exempt vehicles the option

to do a voluntary MOT test. A voluntary MOT test could leave room for motor insurance

providers to require historic vehicles to do a MOT test. A voluntary MOT test could also

address concerns regarding difficulties motorists could face following road traffic accidents in

the absence of a test certificate.

[/quote']

 

meaning that you probably still will need a MoT if you are using the car at all.,

 

It's a no change change.....

[eddyramrod]

I reckon that I should be exempt from MOTs because I maintain most of my vehicles to a decent standard. Problem?

 

Not at all. Likewise I'm exempt from paying tax because I was born before 1973.

 

I was born in 1959, that appears to make me exempt from both tax and MoT!

 

And, for the record, I think this is a Bad Idea. Some kind of annual check is advisable.

[Lankytim]

For me, all it boils down to is that it's perfectly reasonable for any vehicle using the public highway to pass some sort of roadworthyness test every year,just to make sure. Abolishing tests for pre-1960 motors seems to go against all the health and safety stuff that seems to be so important nowadays.

[Pete-M]

Abolishing tests for pre-1960 motors seems to go against all the health and safety stuff that seems to be so important nowadays.

 

If only we could get rid of the rest of it....

[autofive]

I reckon that I should be exempt from MOTs because I maintain most of my vehicles to a decent standard. Problem?

 

Not at all. Likewise I'm exempt from paying tax because I was born before 1973.

 

I was born in 1959, that appears to make me exempt from both tax and MoT!

 

And, for the record, I think this is a Bad Idea. Some kind of annual check is advisable.

 

 

"roadholding; Fair"

[eddyramrod]

I remember that! "The model needed constant topping-up throughout the day." Yep, that's certainly true, I've just had a Snicker and half a bottle of pop!

[forddeliveryboy]

I wonder if VOSA just can't be doing with the hassle of all the different standards that these old motors have?

 

We know from the more recent classics that you don't need a foglight before one date and only need one rear view mirror before another. How much shorter can they make the testers manual if they can happily forget that pre 1930 cars can have hand painted numberplates etc.

 

A few years back I used to help out at a motorcycle workshop as part of a college course. The MOT brake test was a one finger job with modern sportsbikes but it could be 'entertaining' to get some oily old brit single to stop the rollers with it's 2" front drum.

 

Too true. Add loads of lazy/poor testers who have no mechanical understanding whatesoever. This idea is tosh of the first order, all cars used on public roads should have an annual check, even fastidious owners can be blind to dangerous problems. Why not create testing stations for older cars?

 

If the blubberment want to get rid of red tape, then they should disband the dubious and subversive SORN. With all the Big Brother cameras out there, what's the problem. I know of too many old/forgetful/ill people who have had the government FORCIBLY (but legally!) remove and crush their cars, because they didn't fill in the right form. One memorable is an old guy who had spent his whole retirement rebuilding an old car, he went into hospital, came out to find his own car had been claimed and crushed in Her Majesty's name. Utterly appalling, and he was technically a criminal. Having worked for and paid taxes to this country he began to think a little differently in the few remaining years he had.

[gtd2000]

The sky is falling, run for the hills...

 

If it was up to me scrap the whole MOT thing - I've lived in enough places now to realise that even without any type of inspection, annually or otherwise, the majority of people are not driving around in deathtraps.

 

Even with the MOT in place there are always going to be exceptions to the rule.

 

In my opinion, it's the arseholes behind the wheel that cause most of the problems....

[messerschmitt owner]

well, according to the figures a full quarter of the pre 1960 vehicles already drive round with no MoT. With four accidents per year involving a pre 1960 vehicle, I guess that statistically means that one was related to a non MoT-able vehicle.

 

Having driven and owned lots of pre 1960 vehicles, I would say that you tend to be more aware of what is going on around you and are invariably a better driver as a result. Some people won't maintain their cars, others will, but I still say there are statistically more post 2009 vehicles driving round that are unsafe and much more likely to cause an accident because of their unsafeness.

 

The only worry I have is the likelihood of pre-1960 restrictions as to when and where you can drive said vehicle. But what does it matter anyway, as they're not used that much nor do the majority go that far.

[HillmanImp]

In my opinion, it's the arseholes behind the wheel that cause most of the problems....

 

Someone once told me that it was not the car that caused the accidents, it was the nut behind the wheel. Therefore I removed the nut, only for the steering wheel to come off at the first corsner and for me to drive into the wall of a bungalow.

[Mr Lobster]

Scary (or anyone else who knows the facts on this)

 

Will there actually be a 'recommisioning' MOT for older stuff thats been off the road? ie if you've got a 1955 Earnshaw Diamond thats been off the road since the 1970s, will you need to get it MOTd once you put it back on the road and then from that point onwards it would be MOT exempt?

 

The thought that someone could just drive a car thats been off the road 30 years without having some sort of official inspection is the one that worries me. The majority would be sensible but you could bet that somebody would happily just drive their barnfind around without actually doing much to make it safe.

[Cavcraft]

Couldnt agree more, Mr Lob. I can honestly see people dragging cars off driveways and fields, getting the things to run then just driving home in them.

 

I will just say though that whilst a yearly inspection (MOT) is certainly better than nothing, the cert only means the vehicle was fit on the day of the test. Even advisory notices can be ignored so a car could technically be faulty the next day. I'd imagine that these new 'test exempt' motor owners are going to be right in the shit if involved in an accident. I'd like to think they'd get pulled over and checked regulary too but sadly with the advent of ANPR that's unlikely these days.

[messerschmitt owner]

I would have the same issue I have now - finding a local (within 30 miles) class III Mot station!

[oman5]

I'm kind of undecided on this one. on the one hand theres the ageing country gent who has no problem maintaing his '50s Alvis in pristine condition, on the other there's the penniless student with the ropey split screen morris minor. hmm.

I would not be suprised to see either: A)Hugely increased insurance premiums for effected vehicles

Some kind of engineers report/voluntary MOT test as a prerequisite from the insurance company

[Justin Case]

The law of unintended consequences.

 

If I am looking for a pre60 classic and find one with the (voluntary) MOT, then I (and no doubt lots of others) will assume it is roadworthy and make a fair offer for it. If it has no MOT then I will assume that the owner has something to hide and will either walk away or make an insultingly low offer. This lower valueof MOT-less cars will also of course affect insurance payouts when the inevitable happens. So perhaps even older cars will generally end up with MOT certificates whatever the intention of the law changes.

 

On the other hand insurers may insist on a (pricey) engineers report if there is no MOT before covering a car, so I don't think we need worry too much.

[jonny69]

I had no idea there was so much hate and fear towards older classics on here, MOT or not. I think I will refrain from mentioning mine in future.

 

For the record, I'm against there being no MOT - FOR THE SENSIBLE REASONS, not stupid ones like 'wheels coming off on the motorway' which are pathetic scaremongering that could happen to any car on the road MOT or not.

[Ross_K]

I had no idea there was so much hate and fear towards older classics on here, MOT or not.

 

Where are you getting fear and hate from? Quite a few people, myself included, have expressed the reasonable opinion that they believe a road user should have a valid test certificate whatever the age of the vehicle...

 

Valid points have been raised: eg. driving a barn find home, or the monetary value of tested versus untested pre-60 cars, ringing/plate raping

 

Nobody's hating on you. Or your car. Dunno how you got that impression.