Roadworthiness testing for historic Vehicles

mad machs · Post by **mad machs** » Fri Sep 23, 16 5:43 pm

Open consultation on Roadworthiness testing for vehicles of historic interest

Interesting....

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... c-interest

latil · Post by **latil** » Fri Sep 23, 16 6:16 pm

Option 4 in the first part is what is needed. There is some absolute junk coming in and being put straight on the road. We do not need mileage limits either.

Lincrafts.com · Post by **Lincrafts.com** » Fri Sep 23, 16 10:45 pm

If I was buying or owned an MOT exempt vehicle I would still want it tested for my own peace of mind. I agree too many "barn finds" ready for the road, not.

Super Sloth · Post by **Super Sloth** » Fri Sep 23, 16 11:39 pm

The part I dislike the most is the proposed mileage limit.
I'll drive my vehicle when and where I like for as long as I like TYVM!

latil · Post by **latil** » Sat Sep 24, 16 9:21 am

The point missed by probably 99% of MoT exempt vehicle owners is that they must keep their vehicles in a condition that would pass the MoT at any time whilst the vehicle is on the road. It's called roadworthy condition.

XP29 · Post by **XP29** » Sat Sep 24, 16 10:35 am

latil wrote:The point missed by probably 99% of MoT exempt vehicle owners is that they must keep their vehicles in a condition that would pass the MoT at any time whilst the vehicle is on the road. It's called roadworthy condition.

Exactly this! All vehicles if they need an mot or not, includes cars under three year old, have to be road worthy. Lights, tyres, broken windscreen, bits falling off, rot, etc etc. The bonus of being exempt is you don't need to pay the yearly mot fee. You cannot drag a piece of Bananarama! out of a field and drive it.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » Sat Sep 24, 16 10:40 am

I really don't understand the thinking behind making pre '60 cars MOT exempt to be honest.

sharpie · Post by **sharpie** » Sat Sep 24, 16 11:37 am

lack of reliable documentation to test against ?

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Sat Sep 24, 16 11:43 am

Cost-saving, pure and simple.
There is no logical reason for not testing them.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Sat Sep 24, 16 5:05 pm

The MOT test has become less of a road worthiness test and more of a legislation check nowadays.

Nearly every year I visit a friend in Indiana. They don't have vehicle testing at all in that State. It's up to individual States, some have vehicle inspection, some don't. Poor vehicle condition is rarely a cause of accidents.

I think old 'collector' cars should be self certified by their owners as roadworthy, not pulled about by people who know less about the car than the enthusiast owner. I would support a bi-annual MOT for cars from 4 years old to 25 years.

Captain Chaos · Post by **Captain Chaos** » Sat Sep 24, 16 5:13 pm

I always thought this was a bad idea,not just because I run an MOT Station but for most of the reasons quoted.

Most of the pre 60 Vehicles we used to test were absolutely fine,on of my customers had 7+ Austin Sevens that were really well looked after.

There were a few that stick in the memory as being really rather dangerous too,"Oh they all do that don't they" when referring to wayward steering and bum twitching brakes seemed to be the opinion of these owners,people like that never change.

The point about all the Pickups is a good one,there is rat look which is fine I get that,but rat look seems to cover the safety aspects of some too doesn't it?

Cost? All Vehicle details are held by DVLA and I see no difference in cost savings for them,the Customer pays and that's how it's always been.

DVSA in the past have seemed to want to move us more in line with Europe,4 Year first test Bi Annual test. Why do we need to erode Vehicle safety? That really is the bottom line here.

GJUK · Post by **GJUK** » Mon Sep 26, 16 10:59 am

So has anyone contacted the person running this to voice opinions? Same as planning permission, if you don't challenge thinking of others (if it is stupid) then it will just 'happen'.
Maybe the club should write in on to voice concerns...

Post by **MattH** » Mon Sep 26, 16 2:36 pm

I will be responding, just need to check which option i think is best. I dont agree with binning the test altogether like they have for pre 60. I think bring it back for all, but in a lenient format for 40 yrs plus old cars. just need to check which option that falls into.
I don't like this ID check and self certification.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Mon Sep 26, 16 3:43 pm

It is a bit odd here as well.... When you buy a car, you have to have it tested, bit like an MOT.. The you have to have it e tested, (emissions) Any car over 20 years old, and that is it for as long as you own the car. Cars under 20 years have to have e test every 2 years. No more safety tests while you own the car.

If it is in a bad way, a cop will give you an unfit ticket. You then have 2 weeks to get car in roadworthy condition, and have it tested.

I do not think is the perfect system to be honest.

GJUK · Post by **GJUK** » Tue Sep 27, 16 4:57 pm

The points system is the worst part.

"Original axle"
"... errr. "
"chassis modifcations"
"... errr. "
"Engine and gearbox"
"... Err"

"Wheels, brakes, seats.... Is anything standard..."
"Errrrrr"