TimEllershaw
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 01:45 PM |
|
|
Classic and historic cars exempted from MoT
On the BBC web site this morning :
Vehicles manufactured before 1960 will no longer have to have to pass an MoT from 18 November" , Roads Minister Mike Penning said.
Anybody got something that old ?
Clicky...
[Edited on 21/5/2012 by TimEllershaw]
[Edited on 21/5/2012 by TimEllershaw]
http://www.teenagecancertrust.org/
|
|
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
My wife ?
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 01:53 PM |
|
|
Well, that is pretty much pointless. Even without an MOT it's still got to be roadworthy, so what's the difference?!
You could get rid of all MOT stations and replace them with roadside checks, it would be just as effective.
|
|
|
slingshot2000
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 01:54 PM |
|
|
I have a 1959 Land-Rover 88" pick-up. I am only the second owner on the log book and it has only done 33,000miles.
O have been conssidering putting a 220TDi motor in it and making it a little more economical to use. With no MOT test and no Road Tax to pay this is
looking more and more like a good idea.
Regards
Jon
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 02:04 PM |
|
|
What a FUNKING stupid idea!! Whilst i agree MOST are enthusiast owned and well looked after, what about the numptys that own some, a maybe a small
percentage, but i dont see what purpose the exemption serves! At least make it every 2 years or similar!
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 02:05 PM |
|
|
Stupid idea in my view... Cars of that age are just the sort of thing that should have an MOT.. Rust does not stop pre 1960,
|
|
|
mad4x4
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 02:13 PM |
|
|
Would have been better scraping tax for 25year or older Vehicle.... pre 60 vehicles will still rust!!
Scot's do it better in Kilts.
MK INDY's Don't Self Centre Regardless of MK Setting !
|
|
|
Not Anumber
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 02:41 PM |
|
|
They tried scrapping road tax for cars > 25 years before then suddenly woke up and realised it was costing them revenue so subsequently revised it
doing away with the rolling 25 year period and fixing it at a set year instead, which has never been revised.
With the MOT break for early cars it's the privately owned MOT testing stations that miss out on the revenue here, not the government coffers.
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Not Anumber
They tried scrapping road tax for cars > 25 years before then suddenly woke up and realised it was costing them revenue so subsequently revised it
doing away with the rolling 25 year period and fixing it at a set year instead, which has never been revised.
Agreed, but atleast make it rolling for 30 or even 35 year old cars.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 03:00 PM |
|
|
Nearly!
Unfortunately my Land Rover just misses this by 3 years.
Even if it was exempt from testing, my own personal preference would be for the MoT test to continue on anything out there on the roads. Current
strategy seems not to be too restrospective with the standards applied to newer cars, which is the only way to sensibly do it.
"Not Applicable" is the wording most seen on my Land Rover MoT sheet, everything from power steering to seat belts...
It's often the cars that haven't yet had to endure an annual inspection, that I see driving around with illegal tyres, failed lamps,
shagged discs/pads and other signs of neglect.
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 03:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by motorcycle_mayhem
Even if it was exempt from testing, my own personal preference would be for the MoT test to continue on anything out there on the roads.
there are aloready quite a few things on the road that don't require any test, mainly tractors, but also police cars, breakdown recovery
vehicles, mobile cranes, milk floats, snow ploughs, steam powered & pre-1960 lorries....
(some like taxis are covered by other tests instead of MOT's or goods vehicle tests)
-
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 04:35 PM |
|
|
Problem is that current MOT testers don't understand what they are looking at with older vehicles I always have issues with my fleet that are
all 1960s and 1970s. The number of discussions over acceptable play in suspension are endless. There are very few numpties with vehicles that old you
cannot really be a numpty and keep these things running!
Caber:0
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 04:44 PM |
|
|
This a really bad idea I have seen an Austin Seven presented for MOT with eyes of all the brake rods worn to a point where if they were ever used
in anger they would snap. Yes there is a case that modern MOT Testers don't understand old cars and these cars often do tiny mileages but
surely a 4 yearly specialist test is not too much to require.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
rf900rush
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 05:09 PM |
|
|
No Mot's for old bangers.
Surely going to put up the price of these cars.
With this type of policy, won't kit cars be next on the list.
Most do not fall into the modern specs. ABS Airbags etc etc.....
Still think having a MOT inspection need or not is good sense.
I had mine unnecessarily tested in it's first year after SVA. The mot tester found slack in the steering, if unchecked and failed who knows
what might of happened.
A garage Certificate of road worthiness would not be difficult to implement.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rf900rush
The mot tester found slack in the steering, if unchecked and failed who knows what might of happened.
Opens can of worms.............
Arguably, a 'good' driver, would have spotted the lack of 'sharpness' in the steering that failable play would have caused.
..........
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
dray13dad
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 05:35 PM |
|
|
The reason the mot test was first brought in was to get the rubbish of this ilk off the road, now buy yourself a 1960 barn find get it running over a
w/end and off you go. if the classsic car age is anything over 25 yrs how come they go back fifty two so surly it should be anything before 1987
Think the value of old rubbish will now go up..
Hmm maybe should start looking for an old Thames trader..
|
|
|
plentywahalla
|
| posted on 21/5/12 at 06:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Not Anumber
They tried scrapping road tax for cars > 25 years before then suddenly woke up and realised it was costing them revenue so subsequently revised it
doing away with the rolling 25 year period and fixing it at a set year instead, which has never been revised.
With the MOT break for early cars it's the privately owned MOT testing stations that miss out on the revenue here, not the government coffers.
Not quite correct ....
It was a purely political decision. The Tory government brought it in. Then the Labour lot wanted to scrap it as it was seen an elitist as only rich
people could afford classic cars. Blair had promised no tax increases so he had to freeze it instead.
That is why it is frozen at 1972 which is 25 years before the Labour came to power in 1997
Rules are for the guidance of wise men ... and the obedience of fools. (anon)
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 22/5/12 at 02:28 PM |
|
|
*hypothetically*
if I used donor parts from a pre 1960 car (god knows what but bear with me), including the engine
would i be entitled to a pre 1960 number plate and hence be liable for no tax or MOT?
if the above is true what is to stop me then switching the donor parts for new bits - providing i dont modify the chassis?
would I still be liable for no tax or MOT?
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 22/5/12 at 02:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
quote:
Originally posted by rf900rush
The mot tester found slack in the steering, if unchecked and failed who knows what might of happened.
Opens can of worms.............
Arguably, a 'good' driver, would have spotted the lack of 'sharpness' in the steering that failable play would have caused.
..........
Who ever said an enthusiast was a good driver?
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 22/5/12 at 02:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
quote:
Originally posted by rf900rush
The mot tester found slack in the steering, if unchecked and failed who knows what might of happened.
Opens can of worms.............
Arguably, a 'good' driver, would have spotted the lack of 'sharpness' in the steering that failable play would have caused.
..........
Who ever said an enthusiast was a good driver?
Also whoever said they know anything about maintaining cars to which a lot don't old cars with single circuit or rod/cable brakes take a lot
more maintenance than modern cars.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
matt_claydon
|
| posted on 22/5/12 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeFellows
*hypothetically*
if I used donor parts from a pre 1960 car (god knows what but bear with me), including the engine
would i be entitled to a pre 1960 number plate and hence be liable for no tax or MOT?
if the above is true what is to stop me then switching the donor parts for new bits - providing i dont modify the chassis?
would I still be liable for no tax or MOT?
No. This situation already exists with various MOT requirements and the standard applied is based on the date of first registration, which will be a
recent date. The age-related plate thing is solely about the plate itself and is independent of any other requirements for the vehicle. You will
however typically get emissions tested according to the same date as that of the plate, but this is only because MOT emissions are based on the age of
the engine itself which is usually the same as the age-related plate issued. The only complication here is Q plated vehicles which in some respects
are treated as of 'indeterminate origin' and assessed as if they were from some date in the 70s.
|
|
|
