stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,841
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
|
Have a full read of the thought process that brought us to this point. fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/recent-consultations/_file/239/historic-vehicles-consultation-pdf/Please read in context with the full document. Although the Directive allows Member States to exempt from testing 30 year old vehicles, our preferred option is to exempt 40 year old vehicles. This is mainly for safety reasons as the Impact Assessment shows that vehicles first registered between 1978 and 1987 (broadly 30-40 years old when the regulatory changes need to be made) fail 33.7% of MOT tests. For vehicles registered between 1960 and 1977 the failure rate is 25.3% and for pre-1960 vehicles is 14.8%. There are also approximately twice as many vehicles in the 1978-87 age group involved in personal injury road accidents compared with 1960-1977 vehicles. The 40 year old vehicle option is also in line with the current rolling 40 year exemptions from VED. They don't say what they failed on. I would put a good chunk of money on the increased failure rate being emissions failures.
|
|
|
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,841
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
|
Ok, we have had tyres stretched to their limits on wheels, coils cut 'professionally' ( coz we is ALL pro motor engineers, aren't we) and strapped to the cups to stop them falling out, cars lowered way beyond how the people designed them to go and a zillion other modifications done out side homes up and down the country and all ok because the MOT man passed them. Nobody bats an eyelid and those doth protest too much are shouted down for being old farts or overcautious zealots or summat. But scrap the MOT and...... It's a bit like that old joke where the couple are shagging each other to death on a crowded train and nobody looks or bats an eye lid until they both climax, get off each other and light up a celebratory ciggie whereby the whole carriage are up in arms about smoking in a no smoking train. So, Ok, I'm the old fart then. Clearly, the single biggest issue to the new MOT exemption rules will be the running down of parts suppliers when the market collapses for second hand parts. As has been said, if £10k worth of car parts are not being bought then there will be no point in supplying £10k worth of car parts in the future. Who is going to remanufacture parts that nobody is going to buy? Down the line, those vtal parts that you simply must buy to keep your car on the road will not be there. That will kill our hobby just as effectively as any legislation. In saying that, this utter obsession with the new MOT directive will become pointless if the very ownership of our classics and modifieds become all but pointless when local councils, bouyed by Euro legislation, the Green brigade and people that have less than a positive disposition towards the motor car per se get given copious amounts of wind to put in their sails. They have no interest in the money it generates for the economy and no interest in the reality that our cars leave only a baby sized carbon footprint on the environment. I totally respect the view that it's stupid to exempt vehicles from the MOT, I happen to agree with that stance but, sorry, the MOT debacle is not the priority, we have bigger battles to win or we may as well not bother. Stretched tyres and cut springs are legal, I've proven so in court.
|
|
|
|
Rob M
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,915
Club RR Member Number: 41
|
|
|
Ok, we have had tyres stretched to their limits on wheels, coils cut 'professionally' ( coz we is ALL pro motor engineers, aren't we) and strapped to the cups to stop them falling out, cars lowered way beyond how the people designed them to go and a zillion other modifications done out side homes up and down the country and all ok because the MOT man passed them. Nobody bats an eyelid and those doth protest too much are shouted down for being old farts or overcautious zealots or summat. But scrap the MOT and...... It's a bit like that old joke where the couple are shagging each other to death on a crowded train and nobody looks or bats an eye lid until they both climax, get off each other and light up a celebratory ciggie whereby the whole carriage are up in arms about smoking in a no smoking train. So, Ok, I'm the old fart then. Clearly, the single biggest issue to the new MOT exemption rules will be the running down of parts suppliers when the market collapses for second hand parts. As has been said, if £10k worth of car parts are not being bought then there will be no point in supplying £10k worth of car parts in the future. Who is going to remanufacture parts that nobody is going to buy? Down the line, those vtal parts that you simply must buy to keep your car on the road will not be there. That will kill our hobby just as effectively as any legislation. In saying that, this utter obsession with the new MOT directive will become pointless if the very ownership of our classics and modifieds become all but pointless when local councils, bouyed by Euro legislation, the Green brigade and people that have less than a positive disposition towards the motor car per se get given copious amounts of wind to put in their sails. They have no interest in the money it generates for the economy and no interest in the reality that our cars leave only a baby sized carbon footprint on the environment. I totally respect the view that it's stupid to exempt vehicles from the MOT, I happen to agree with that stance but, sorry, the MOT debacle is not the priority, we have bigger battles to win or we may as well not bother. Stretched tyres and cut springs are legal, I've proven so in court. I never said they were not, did I?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ve just been informed that I’m sorry to say it won’t apply to us here. I was at a meeting recently in England where the position was emphasised. The rules apply to gb only. Ni is part of U.K. not gb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stretched tyres and cut springs are legal, I've proven so in court. [/quote] So you have case proven that all cut springs and all stretched tyres are legal and safe or have you appeared in court because a police officer issued a ticket and you satisfied a judge that the tyres and spring on your car were in their opinion ok to be used on the road when fitted on your car when you received the ticket? .
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 7, 2017 18:20:11 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. 'Case law' established after a dispute has gone to trial is quite different to a county judge dismissing a ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have a full read of the thought process that brought us to this point. fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/recent-consultations/_file/239/historic-vehicles-consultation-pdf/Please read in context with the full document. Although the Directive allows Member States to exempt from testing 30 year old vehicles, our preferred option is to exempt 40 year old vehicles. This is mainly for safety reasons as the Impact Assessment shows that vehicles first registered between 1978 and 1987 (broadly 30-40 years old when the regulatory changes need to be made) fail 33.7% of MOT tests. For vehicles registered between 1960 and 1977 the failure rate is 25.3% and for pre-1960 vehicles is 14.8%. There are also approximately twice as many vehicles in the 1978-87 age group involved in personal injury road accidents compared with 1960-1977 vehicles. The 40 year old vehicle option is also in line with the current rolling 40 year exemptions from VED. They don't say what they failed on. I would put a good chunk of money on the increased failure rate being emissions failures. Emission failures are going to depend upon the vehicles age - Petrol vehicles registered pre August 1975 & Diesels registered pre August 1979 are only subject to a visual emissions inspection at the MOT hence not machine tested - so unless they are belching clouds of blue smoke they are going to pass www.gov.uk/emissions-testing
|
|
|
|
steveg
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,565
|
|
|
There is a bit in PPC about it and they bring up the fact that by not paying tax and having MOT you loose certain rights. I can see in the future people feeling the same about old slow cars in the same way some do about cyclists, no tax, insurance etc they shouldn't be on the road. I'm sure it will eventually effect insurance costs in the end but that will depend on what claims they get. I have questioned companies in the past about why they charge so much extra for a modified car and they start on about dangerously modified Land Rovers. I think there was an accident that got a lot of media interest that started that. There was also an unfortunate accident involving a veteran car at the weekend. I don't know what happened but some pictures came up on facebook of it. I hope that doesn't get used as an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a bit in PPC about it and they bring up the fact that by not paying tax and having MOT you loose certain rights. I can see in the future people feeling the same about old slow cars in the same way some do about cyclists, no tax, insurance etc they shouldn't be on the road. Or horses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm really annoyed with myself. I've been away from RR and this discussion for a few days. During that time I read, somewhere, a statement that clearly and unambiguously framed this MOT consultation/change within the context of a longer term move towards weening people off combustion and on to newer forms of locomotion. It was right from the horse's mouth, a clear link between these changes, in the context of transport, and directly linked to an intention to transition UK road stock to EVs. It wasn't a 'think-piece' or a bit of journo-hackery... it was government policy wording.
I read it and thought to myself "I must put this in that discussion on RR because it's the first time I've seen it stated officially and unambiguously".
And do you think I can remember what it was, where it was, or who it was?
I cannot.
I can't bloody find it now.
HNNNNNGGG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, thats the long term plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe that is the plan the same as the plan was buy diesel , only the non plugin hybrids don't need a power station burning fuel behind them , how clean really is a Tesla? how long before someone figures out the pollution caused by that power supply is impacting on the planet?
The green agenda backed by the car industry needing feeding by new purchases
The road stock has constantly changed anyway different generations of Euro emissions, Euro 6 now I think, we've already had one emissions scandal!
Yes the Mot and tax free status has changed , however the use of a modified bit hasn't really changed apart from the possibility of no free tax, if it needed an inspection before it still needs it now,
Consider this maybe getting a Q plate will actually secure the freedom of use?
|
|
retired with too many projects!
|
|
|
|
|
I have questioned companies in the past about why they charge so much extra for a modified car and they start on about dangerously modified Land Rovers. I think there was an accident that got a lot of media interest that started that. There was. Some sort of mechanical failure on a vehicle the guy maintained himself. I believe he rolled it into a lake with wife and their four or five children on board, and two or three of the kids died as a result. I also recall the investigation of the wreck found things such as mismatched callipers on the front axle and a variety of other mechanical maladies. He got a few years inside for it, but having seen the name popping up on a few Land Rover based Facebook groups in the past year or so I must assume he's out.
|
|
|
|
glenanderson
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,116
Club RR Member Number: 64
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 11:44:53 GMT
|
I have questioned companies in the past about why they charge so much extra for a modified car and they start on about dangerously modified Land Rovers. I think there was an accident that got a lot of media interest that started that. There was. Some sort of mechanical failure on a vehicle the guy maintained himself. I believe he rolled it into a lake with wife and their four or five children on board, and two or three of the kids died as a result. I also recall the investigation of the wreck found things such as mismatched callipers on the front axle and a variety of other mechanical maladies. He got a few years inside for it, but having seen the name popping up on a few Land Rover based Facebook groups in the past year or so I must assume he's out. I believe, from the coverage at the time, his vehicle’s mechanical shortcomings were compounded by poor driving. I think that, and the fact that his bodging was deemed wilful rather than inept, is what saw him do time inside.
|
|
My worst worry about dying is my wife selling my stuff for what I told her it cost...
|
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 12:57:32 GMT
|
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 10, 2017 13:00:15 GMT by Deleted
|
|
Rob M
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,915
Club RR Member Number: 41
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 18:39:11 GMT
|
It would be interesting to know whether those mods were made in between MOTs or some of the less than adequate mods were not picked up on during the MOT prior to the accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 18:52:39 GMT
|
From what I read earlier it had been through a few years of MOTs and possibly with some of the odd inspected. Sounded to me lime a terrible tragedy that has since filled on into a lot of emotional, legal and mental mess.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 10, 2017 18:54:56 GMT by Deleted
|
|
froggy
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,099
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 19:44:53 GMT
|
It would be interesting to know whether those mods were made in between MOTs or some of the less than adequate mods were not picked up on during the MOT prior to the accident. I had a disco in for test years ago with a solid disc on one side and a vented disc on the other , efficiency was spot on and even but there’s a nice vague rfr for inappropriate modifications so knocked it on that .
|
|
|
|
Rob M
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,915
Club RR Member Number: 41
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 22:59:56 GMT
|
It would be interesting to know whether those mods were made in between MOTs or some of the less than adequate mods were not picked up on during the MOT prior to the accident. I had a disco in for test years ago with a solid disc on one side and a vented disc on the other , efficiency was spot on and even but there’s a nice vague rfr for inappropriate modifications so knocked it on that . I would suspect, and correct me if i'm wrong, that the solid and vented disc would have exactly the same braking efficiency while being tested but MAY have had different levels of efficiency with a high degree of useage as the vented disc would be more efficient due to its ability to dissipate heat more efficiently than a solid disc. That would not be apparent during an MOT? I think the fact that the Land Rover involved in the fatality had different sized calipers on the front wheels ( IIRC) would have made the braking imbalance much more noticeable in normal useage that solid and vented discs. I'm happy to be corrected!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2017 21:12:01 GMT
|
Yep, thats the long term plan. Do you have a link to an official document that states the long term plan?
|
|
|
|
|