|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:18:34 GMT
|
Heh - this is going to be one of those threads that runs for pages and pages, I can feel it... Some food for thought: Pro - people running classic open-wheelers won't have to fabricate little wheelarches any more in order to be legal [spurious 'fact' that I fabricated, there] Con - in France they have (or had) a system whereby cars have the equivalent of an MoT every two years, with any faults having to be rectified in time for the next test. In reality, one result of this was that a naughty friend of my dad's was found to be driving a work van with no headlights and iffy brakes, and was effectively given the green light to keep driving it like that for two years. So, if we remove the necessity of the test altogether, will this kind of thing happen...? I'm just stirring, of course. Some will respect the system, some won't. I imagine I'd have a stronger opinion one way or the other if I owned a pre-1960 car...  |
| |
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:21:26 GMT
|
|
nice amount of facts in that article. like none.
when is it happening? how do you prove exemptness? link to the DoT press release? how will it be policed? will it mean restrictions for cars that are MOT exempt?
tbh, it still sounds like a load of bullsh1t to me, especially as its VOSA who currently issue and regulate MOTs, who are a disassociated oranisation from the DoT. plus, why did they pick 1960 as the cutoff, a date that has no standing in current legislation. if it was 1965 or 1972, it would be more believable.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:27:44 GMT
|
|
Probably the FBHVC who pushed for this, so their pristine million pound Astons and Bentleys can be used once a year at the concours event all without seeing the dirt of an mot station.
Also i can see a few idiots thinking they can run a complete wreck that has been sitting in a barn for 40 years as a cheap way of motoring, thne someone is killed and all classics get frowned upon.
|
| |
1993 Fiat Panda Selecta
2003 Vauxhall Combo 1.7DI van
2006 Mercedes Kompressor Evolution-S AMG SportCoupé
"You think you hate it now, wait til you drive it"
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:28:13 GMT
|
well f-k me sideways, its true- DoT press releaseedit- pOG beat me to it! a date set and everything. 18th nov. the next immediate thing that springs to mind is what insurance companies will think of this. id wager although theoretically possible to drive a pre-1960 car without a MOT, it will be impossible to obtain insurance on one, meaning youll still need to get one for the benefit of your ins. company anyway. i would also wager than a pre-1960 version of a classic whos production run spans the cutoff date has just had its value doubled overnight- the same as with tax exemptness. |
| |
Last Edit: May 21, 2012 11:30:51 GMT by Dez
|
|
MrSpeedy
East Midlands
www.vintagediesels.co.uk
Posts: 4,786 
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:29:21 GMT
|
|
So, yet again, they work on a 'manufatured by' date rather than a 'designed by' date. So a 1959 Triumph Herald (for example) would be exempt and a 1961 (Identical) would not?
Same applies to Landrovers, Minis, VW Beetles etc etc.
How does that make sense?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:30:55 GMT
|
How does that make sense? Its the government, so like everything else, it makes no sense at all  |
| |
1993 Fiat Panda Selecta
2003 Vauxhall Combo 1.7DI van
2006 Mercedes Kompressor Evolution-S AMG SportCoupé
"You think you hate it now, wait til you drive it"
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:32:23 GMT
|
The 1960 cut off has nothing to do with VOSA or DoT: The EU Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, Chapter II, Exceptions, Article 4 states: “Member States may, after consulting the Commission, exclude from the scope of this Directive, or subject to special provisions, certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation. Member States may, after consulting the Commission, set their own testing standards for vehicles considered to be of historic interest.” I'd like to know what is meant by this: manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation |
| |
Last Edit: May 21, 2012 11:34:17 GMT by damien4884
1977 datsun 810 180b estate |
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:33:44 GMT
|
|
I bet there is a glut of registrations come onto the market from pre-1960 cars now then...
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:36:45 GMT
|
|
there is an awful lot in that EU statement about vehicles which aren't in use... Or not used on public roads... Or have restricted use...
|
| |
Last Edit: May 21, 2012 11:38:34 GMT by akku
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:38:37 GMT
|
|
Akku, yes, that worries me too.
Quick qu - do any of our resident MOT testers know if it will still be possible to officially MOT a pre '60 heap, or will the computer say no to issuing the certificate? I appreciate that the data on that has probably not been issued yet, but dies the system cause problems when trying to run an MOT through the system for existing exempt vehicles?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:38:50 GMT
|
|
Well blow me. I never thought they'd get anything like that through.
Rather than making me think 'no MOT- I could get away with this, this and this..' it's giving me visions of extra vigilant VOSA and police to prove a point that no MOT is not an excuse to be unroadworthy..
My pre-60 car is due for MOT in July, but presumably if it fails, I could leave it on the drive until November and then drive it legally. I find that scary.
|
| |
...proper medallion man chest wig motoring. |
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:39:17 GMT
|
I bet there is a glut of registrations come onto the market from pre-1960 cars now then... yeah, let the ringing commence! i just 'assessed' my fleet, and tbh i will do quite well out of it. 3/8 will be exempt. what this will do to the value of them versus un-exempt models, only time will tell. i stillt hink how the insurance companies react to this will have a massive bearing on the effect this legislation will have. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:39:20 GMT
|
Buy this, no need for an mot, tax is free, and all you need is insurance.  Yep i wouldnt and neither would you, but some people would be stupid enough. |
| |
1993 Fiat Panda Selecta
2003 Vauxhall Combo 1.7DI van
2006 Mercedes Kompressor Evolution-S AMG SportCoupé
"You think you hate it now, wait til you drive it"
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:40:00 GMT
|
|
Assuming they will take a similar view to the IoM then in that there is no MOT but should you be stopped with a car that is obviously dangerous then they bend you over and don't both with any lube!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:47:13 GMT
|
|
And at the risk of taking the political route...
We have a government who have the biggest ever budget deficit, probably the highest rate of unemployment (in real terms) since the 1930s, an economy which has dipped back into recession, etc. etc.
How is this a priority?
If anything its taken a few hundred thousand MOTs out of the retail motor trade's coffers...
If they have so many people sitting on their hands in the DfT perhaps they can transfer them over to DWP, DTI and DfE where they may actually do some good?
Its not like we're all sitting around saying "well, there's nothing at all wrong with the country so lets invest in a 2 month consultation process on tinkering about with MOT regs... Theres nothing better we could be doing after all...
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:48:16 GMT
|
|
Most states in Aus don't have a yearly MOT and to be honest there aren't that many vehicles that are obviously taking the micky, on the other hand if you drive something with a obvious defect then expect to get well and truely shafted. The MOT with the be like the current tax exemption is - there's no way you could pay road tax on an exempt vehicle even if you wanted to, if for example they introduced a limited use clause.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 11:55:47 GMT
|
Assuming they will take a similar view to the IoM then in that there is no MOT but should you be stopped with a car that is obviously dangerous then they bend you over and don't both with any lube! ^As Marc says, it's not all doom and gloom. You will get the odd knob that abuses the system but that's the same for all things regardless. The Gov will probably be thinking along the lines that those with cars of a 'certain age' are car enthusiasts, the kind of people that maintain the cars regardless of cost. You've got quite a large Traffic Division over there (Police wise), much greater than we have over here and definitely more proactive, so anyone abusing the system would more than likely be picked up quite early. Just because it doesn't need an MOT doesn't mean you won't get shafted for driving an unsafe vehicle... |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 12:52:30 GMT
|
Quick qu - do any of our resident MOT testers know if it will still be possible to officially MOT a pre '60 heap, or will the computer say no to issuing the certificate? I appreciate that the data on that has probably not been issued yet, but dies the system cause problems when trying to run an MOT through the system for existing exempt vehicles? This is an interesting point, Paul... Let us assume that with exemption comes a 'high days and holidays' restriction (that follows after 6 months say)... if you could get an MoT on a pre-60, would that give you an 'opt out' to carry on as normal, going wherever, whenever? Good point - hadn't thought of that angle. I was thinking more of the road safety side, and still having an MOT would be very useful in the event of needing to prove / argue roadworthiness, either at the roadside, with another party's insurers or potentially in court. Whilst the MOT only confirms that the vehicle in question is roadworthy on the day it was tested, having one would probably be very useful to deflect accusations of lack of maintenance etc, as it would level the playing field back to the previous status quo. |
| |
|
|
fogey
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,594
|
|
May 21, 2012 13:10:37 GMT
|
|
The press release states that the option to have a pre 1960 vehicle MOT'd if you so desire will still be available.
|
| |
|
|
Seth
South East
MorrisOxford TriumphMirald HillmanMinx BorgwardIsabellaCombi
Posts: 15,517
|
|
May 21, 2012 13:13:00 GMT
|
|
Best get the Borgward bolted together then!
Would be best if insurers would demand/accept an 'optional' MOT or yearly mechanics/engineers type report on anything exempt that the owner is wanting to insure for daily use.
|
| |
Follow your dreams or you might as well be a vegetable. |
|
|
|
