MoT exception 2 : This time Junkman is in charge

[Craig the Princess]

Looks like the government want to increase the MoT exemption to all cars over 40 years old.

 

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

 

To me that is a terrible idea, welcome back to the road shiny minis with chicken wire and filler floorpans etc.

[SiC]

Tbh in an accident you're pretty screwed in a 40yr old car. If you make bodge repairs, then your far more likely to kill yourself than anything you hit.

[scaryoldcortina]

Damn. I'm going to respond to that.

[Craig the Princess]

Tbh in an accident you're pretty screwed in a 40yr old car. If you make bodge repairs, then your far more likely to kill yourself than anything you hit.

Or kill the people you sell the car to...

[Lacquer Peel]

How many Tory voters own classic cars? Quite a few I bet.

[scaryoldcortina]

SiC, my main worry isn't rot, it's brakes and tyres. I test a LOT of recently resurrected old cars and the most common fail is for low brake efficiency, so the problem is more about inability to avoid anything you might hit which might well be a lot softer than the front of a volvo 144...

[dollywobbler]

I'm with you SoC, in point of view and in writing to the consultation. The 'substantially changed' bit could be worrying too. There are a LOT of modified classics out there. Where do you draw the line? If modified classics are considered safe, even though braking mods may make them safer, how come unmodified ones are considered ok?

 

It could be worse though. The EU regs actually allow a 30-year limit. That's been dismissed straight away thankfully. 

[SiC]

I don't know why tyre age isn't on MOTs. Apparently it's a thing that classic car owners like originality - right down to original (ofc perished) tyres.

[Junkman]

Yeah, everybody will hit everything in sight twice just because his car is MoT exempt.

Now where are some nuns and kittens I can kill with my death trap?

[scaryoldcortina]

Just because some people know what they are doing doesn't mean everyone does. A safety check every year is a good thing because 99% of people INCLUDING classic car owners don't know how to do it.

 

Oh, it's an old car, I thought they all had shit brakes... No, you have a siezed up mess that made 30% on the rollers.

[Junkman]

A safety check every year is a good thing because 99% of people INCLUDING classic car owners don't know how to do it.

 

Well, neither does the MoT according to my experience.

[scaryoldcortina]

That's your experience. I can only say that it's my job and I do it properly.

[danthecapriman]

Aside from the possible safety issues with this it's what it might lead on to that worries me. Is it a stealth first step to limited use?

If it's tax and mot exempt could or would they turn round later and just impose mileage and use limitations on the qualifying vehicles.

[chaseracer]

Yes.

[Dave_Q]

I'm with you SoC, in point of view and in writing to the consultation. The 'substantially changed' bit could be worrying too. There are a LOT of modified classics out there. Where do you draw the line? If modified classics are considered safe, even though braking mods may make them safer, how come unmodified ones are considered ok?

 

It could be worse though. The EU regs actually allow a 30-year limit. That's been dismissed straight away thankfully. 

 

I think that's possibly a typo, I understood it that "substantially modified" cars would NOT be exempt, i.e they would still need an MOT.

 

 

I believe that Junkman's cars are roadworthy at all times if he is driving them, Barry Public perhaps less so.

[doobietoo]

I'm with you SoC, in point of view and in writing to the consultation. The 'substantially changed' bit could be worrying too. There are a LOT of modified classics out there. Where do you draw the line? If modified classics are considered safe, even though braking mods may make them safer, how come unmodified ones are considered ok?

 

It could be worse though. The EU regs actually allow a 30-year limit. That's been dismissed straight away thankfully. 

 

From reading up on this it is being suggested that the 5 point rule which covers "radically altered vehicles" will be applied... I am with Junkman on this one we are talking of less than 1% of all the cars on the road.... a figure that will only decrease over time. By comparison almost twice as many 3 year old cars failed their first mot. So if you really want to get on your high horse then go for the 3 year exemption for new cars as you are twice as likely to be killed by one of those... 

[Cavcraft]

I'd accept this more if they ban MOT exemption for (some) recovery trucks.

[DodgeRover]

I can see restricted use coming soon, along with a permit system meaning you can only use your vehicle on a certain number of days per year or for organised club events.

There will be no way round it short of a full re registration BIVA and comply with modern Euro 5 or whatever requirements as for most people old car = killing nuns and kittens with choking fumes...not at all like all those nice new VAG diesels or the electric cars that obviously don't use electric from coal fired power stations only ones powered by unicorns running on treadmills in an environmentally friendly manner.

 

Anyway no MOT bad idea for the majority of folks, much better idea would be to just eliminate the parts of the test that the vehicle couldn't have complied with when new. Simple. It that means just a brakes, tyres and lights check that's fine.

 

I'd accept this more if they ban MOT exemption for (some) recovery trucks.

A lot of recoveries are running mot exempted illegally anyway got to be over 3.5t now and spec lift only - no bed that can be used for alternative loads.

[drum]

I should probably follow the link, but what is the rationale for not MoTing 40+ cars? It can't be because they're clogging up the MoT stations.

 

By the same token, if it is brought in I can't see there being a spike in accidents due to the thousands of pre 1976 rot boxes being used daily. 99% of them only get driven to and from a car show a couple of times a year.

[Split_Pin]

My last house was a fucking death trap. The PO used putty to repair the condenser on the boiler and also wired up a metal outside light with no earth. Total wazoc. There is no annual safety check on houses.

 

There must be similarly deluded car owners and 'restorers' out there.

 

As such I think a yearly test should be mandatory for all vehicles.

[Dave_Q]

I should probably follow the link, but what is the rationale for not MoTing 40+ cars? It can't be because they're clogging up the MoT stations.

 

By the same token, if it is brought in I can't see there being a spike in accidents due to the thousands of pre 1976 rot boxes being used daily. 99% of them only get driven to and from a car show a couple of times a year.

 

In short it's a half hearted attempt at EU harmonisation - most member states have a 30 year rule for historic (no MOT), and 4+2 testing where the first test is at 4 years old and then every 2 years.

 

Frankly it's likely to disappear regardless of the outcome of this consultation BECAUSE BREXIT.

[They_all_do_that_sir]

I was under the impression that most classic owners MOT the car anyway because insurers insist on it?

I'm pretty confident in my own skills but for the sake of £30 a year it's nice for someone else to agree with you.

I remember an MOT tester telling me the worst cars they get in are those coming in for their very first MOT. Bald tyres, pads with no friction material left, all brake light bulbs shot etc. They are followed a close second by badly modified motors with cut springs, tyres rubbing arches, badly fitted "performance" exhausts.

 

Yes most classic owners take pride in the condition of their cars, but what's now stopping me buying a basket case morris minor with a chocolate chassis, shit brakes and fucked tyres then driving my kids down the M1 in it....Yes legally it should be in a roadworthy condition but at least the MOT kept the worst ones legally off the road

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

[lisbon_road]

I maintain my 40+ car well enough but still like someone to check stuff like the rear brakes.  How can I know they are right?  Now a discounted MOT because they are so quick to do as there is so little to check, now that would be an idea.

 

I remember once the tester finished the MOT and offered me a cup of tea.  I appreciated the friendly attitude but he said 'I can't start the next MOT yet as the computer doesn't believe I have finished this one'.

 

I think he works around it now.........

[Cavcraft]

A lot of recoveries are running mot exempted illegally anyway got to be over 3.5t now and spec lift only - no bed that can be used for alternative loads.

 

Tell me about it. Beyond laughable how many try and palm shagged out 3.5 Transit beavertails off as MOT exempt, and to be frank even the 'properly' text exempt ones are pretty much a waste of time.

[They_all_do_that_sir]

Tell me about it. Beyond laughable how many try and palm shagged out 3.5 Transit beavertails off as MOT exempt, and to be frank even the 'properly' text exempt ones are pretty much a waste of time.

How can something like a recovery vehicle not need tested?? Especially with the abuse they must receive...

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

[Eddie Honda]

I'm with Junkman on this. The MOT is a bit of a chocolate teapot but everyone thinks it's Royal-fucking-Doulton.

 

The actual evidence is out there rather than ideas/biases/opinions in peoples heads.

 

Pre-1980 cars here are NCT exempt. I get to drive in other countries too (if it's legal at home, it's legal on tour).

 

No carnage going on here. Hell, they don't test motorcycles or tricycles at all.

 

I can even use the car whenever I like, no restrictions.

[Junkman]

I believe that Junkman's cars are roadworthy at all times if he is driving them

 

They usually aren't when they just have passed an MoT.

 

I'm now paying to have my cars checked properly, because the MoT is actually not allowed to do that, it's just a total farce adding 35 - 50 completely unnecessary quid to the bill.

Enter the Piggo, which "flew" through the MoT test and on proper inspection afterwards it was revealed that it has knackered brakes all round. The MoT isn't allowed to check that,

because they aren't even authorised to remove the wheels, for laughing out loud.

 

The very day after Conrad's P6 had passed the MoT, we went on a trip which brought us into the proximity of were the 2016 Shitefest was.

Over 100 miles from home, it suddenly made horrible noises whenever he hit the brake pedal. We took one front wheel off and saw in horror that there were no brake pads left whatsoever. One day after it passed the bloody MoT!

 

Those are just two examples, because I'm too lazy to type everything I ever experienced at MoTs. I should actually write a book about it.

If the MoT were actually a proper test, I'd be all for it. But the way it's run makes it just a hilariously stupid Punch and Judy theatre and I have better things to spend my hard earned on. The roadworthiness of my cars for example.

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

The very day after Conrad's P6 had passed the MoT, we went on a trip which brought us into the proximity of were the 2016 Shitefest was.

Over 100 miles from home, it suddenly made horrible noises whenever he hit the brake pedal. We took one front wheel off and saw in horror that there were no brake pads left whatsoever. One day after it passed the bloody MoT!

 

 

In my defence here, only one brake pad had lost its friction material.

[Faker]

For the mot exemption your vehicle must be registered as a historic vehicle on the v5. This is also required for tax exemption. When the changes come in to force, you can be sure restrictions for use will be imposed. Vehicles that have been heavily modified from standard won't comply and will still have to be motd. If you want to continue to use your classic with no hinderance keep the v5 sdp and mot it as normal. No restrictions.

[Split_Pin]

They usually aren't when they just have passed an MoT.

 

I'm now paying to have my cars checked properly, because the MoT is actually not allowed to do that, it's just a total farce adding 35 - 50 completely unnecessary quid to the bill.

Enter the Piggo, which "flew" through the MoT test and on proper inspection afterwards it was revealed that it has knackered brakes all round. The MoT isn't allowed to check that,

because they aren't even authorised to remove the wheels, for laughing out loud.

 

The very day after Conrad's P6 had passed the MoT, we went on a trip which brought us into the proximity of were the 2016 Shitefest was.

Over 100 miles from home, it suddenly made horrible noises whenever he hit the brake pedal. We took one front wheel off and saw in horror that there were no brake pads left whatsoever. One day after it passed the bloody MoT!

 

Those are just two examples, because I'm too lazy to type everything I ever experienced at MoTs. I should actually write a book about it.

If the MoT were actually a proper test, I'd be all for it. But the way it's run makes it just a hilariously stupid Punch and Judy theatre and I have better things to spend my hard earned on. The roadworthiness of my cars for example.

It's not the MOT that appears to be the problem here, it appears to the the garage's interpretation of the rules.

 

Either way, at least you are at the opposite end of the spectrum and actually go out your way to subject them to an additional inspection.

 

My concern is that there has to be a percentage of unscrupulous restorers out there or others who are simply clueless who will use the lapse in regulations as a way to circumvent the need for roadworthiness.

 

Unlikely they will be pulled over by the Fash either as the car will show up on the ANPR as legitimate.