Pre '60 MOT exempt

[Giff]

From: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/ ... EPI-133482

Looks like pre 1960 vehicles will become exempt from MOT testing.

[mk1coopers]

I don't know if this is such a good idea, as much as the MOT is a pain with a classic car its nice to know that someone else has looked at the car (even if it is your local classic friendly tester), if they do it why not make it 1973 to fit in with the tax exemption?

[minimk1man]

At least that would make it consistant with pre-60 lorries which don't require MOT's. I have never understood the logic that an old HGV does not need a test but a car does.

[JC T ONE]

Here they have to be MOT,ed every 2 years, after they are 4 years old.

Then when a car turns 35 years, it dont have to be tested for 5 years.

When it then turns 40, it only need to be tested at 8 years intervals.

[Tim]

Here they have to be inspected when they are first registered, unless they are new.

Tim

[814CWE]

this means there will be a massive illicit "trade " in pre 60 logbooks as well as the usual "tax exempt log book " scenario,which is reaching an all time high..

what scares me is unroadworthy cars will be allowed onto the road,,when they are really only fit for restoration projects or parts

not to mention the number plate traders,
kerching

[guru_1071]

i dont think its such a good idea.

what will happen when an 'old banger' is involved in an accident that is caused by an 'unroadworthy' issue?

a lack of mot's looks good on paper, but will only lead to more restrictions been placed upon usage of the cars.

im happy to pay the £50 and know that my car reaches a certain standard for use of the road - the free road tax is enough of a 'gift' for me.

i can understand why a pre-war excemption would be considered, but those cars are used far less

[Etienne B.]

i dont think its such a good idea.

what will happen when an 'old banger' is involved in an accident that is caused by an 'unroadworthy' issue?

a lack of mot's looks good on paper, but will only lead to more restrictions been placed upon usage of the cars.

im happy to pay the £50 and know that my car reaches a certain standard for use of the road - the free road tax is enough of a 'gift' for me.

i can understand why a pre-war excemption would be considered, but those cars are used far less

Totally agree with this, Rich.
We here have two types of log book, one being specific for "historic" vehicles - or so pendently called ...
Useful for re-registering a previously abandoned machine, and used to come with a total MOT exemption but a geographic restriction regarding use of the car.
We recently managed to obtain free use of the car , but with the restriction of a 5 years MOT - compared to the usual 2 years frequency for commonly registered cars. Sounds much better to me.

[Giff]

a lack of mot's looks good on paper, but will only lead to more restrictions been placed upon usage of the cars.

I've been reading the fine print for some time and feared a move to add restrictions to all "historic" vehicles that fall under the pre '73 taxation class.
I think this move clarifies the plans and certainly will add restrictions to pre '60 vehicles but leave the newer cars alone.
Small mercy I know.

[mk1]

Sounds like a recipe for totally crocked pieces of shit to be allowed on the roads, smoking like a train, leaking break fluid pr fuel & dropping bits of plastic padding as they crab their way down the road.

For thirty odd pounds a year I would rather see the status quo prevail.

[guru_1071]

Sounds like a recipe for totally crocked pieces of shit to be allowed on the roads, smoking like a train, leaking break fluid pr fuel & dropping bits of plastic padding as they crab their way down the road.

please stop been so rude about my collection of cars mark.....

[mk1]

You may think I was referring to your fine fleet, but I couldn't possibly comment

[814CWE]

Sounds like a recipe for totally crocked pieces of shit to be allowed on the roads, smoking like a train, leaking break fluid pr fuel & dropping bits of plastic padding as they crab their way down the road.

For thirty odd pounds a year I would rather see the status quo prevail.

i totally agree mark,,

what about the number plate traders resurrecting the old sheds which are total "basket cases" just to sell the number on,,,

makes me shudder to think a pre 60 car could be following me,,wondering if it has got corroded brake pipes ,any chassis left or some other accident waiting to happen

i disagree with lots of vosas rules on mot,and as an ex mot tester,,i think older cars should be cut a certain ammount of slack,,but no mot at all is tantamount to comitting murder,,

trust me it will happen..some worn out nail of a car will kill somebody!!

we all know the ammounts of faults that can occur over a year between mot tests...

no mot at all,,,???

i think i dont want to be on the roads anymore,,

[ChrisB]

Typical that I would own a 1960 car and miss out by under a year

[814CWE]

haaa, my 2 current 1959 minis,on the road , are registered early 1960.....

[Giff]

Straight forward enough process to correct that through the DLVA.

[In the shed]

This rule has to be a non starter from sense's sake.

I'm a boarderline anarchist, but this is a potential violation of common law via negligence.

[Tim]

As I mentioned earlier, we don't have annual inspections here. Cars are inspected when they are first registered or after their registration lapses and that's it. Now despite what many of you are saying, our roads aren't covered in badly maintained deathtraps. The police keep an eye out for cars that aren't roadworthy and can take them off the road or require that they are repaired and that seems to work fine.

Here (and in the UK) cars older than 1960 would make up a tiny percentage of the total vehicles on the road. If you assume that most of that tiny percentage are well maintained by enthusiasts, it leaves only a handful of potential "old sheds" and basket cases. Our experience here is that we just don't see them.

As for it being negligence, I would have thought that the onus is always on the driver to ensure that the vehicle is safe, regardless of whether it has a current MOT or not.

Believe me, the sky won't fall in.
Tim

[mk1coopers]

The MOT is only valid at the time of test over here, you are quite right Tim that the rest of the year it's up to the driver to keep their vehicle roadworthy, you could pass an MOT, drive out of the station, fit bald tyres, take bulbs out, remove wiper blades ect, and still have a valid MOT (until you were caught with the defects, then you would get a 'producer' and have to have those items re-inspected). I think people are concerned that someone's going to drag some old crock out of a field, set off down the road, and have an accident that over here will set off a chain reaction that leads to restrictions on the use of our cars (I'm sure most if not all of the forum members on here maintain their cars to very high standards). Perhaps they need to put in a clause so that if a car has not been taxed or insured for a period of time (say 12 months) it has to have an inspection before it can be used (and it has to be trailered to the station) , this would stop something coming directly from the barn / field / garage straight onto the road. I still think if they do it it should tie in with the 1973 tax exemption, other wise you will end up with a two tier 'historic' class.

[minitravellerman]

MoT testing is carried out by a division of the DVA (NI) here in N Ireland rather than through local garages, and this is quite a tight process. I've always felt it a little unfair that classic vehicles need to be tested every year. It's something I think should be changed to a milage based process. I probably do about 2 or 3 thousand miles a year in each of the Minis so obviously won't have worn as much as my daily MG ZR at 15000 miles a year! Makes sense that it should be tested more often to ensure road worthyness than the Mini.