|
|
May 21, 2012 13:27:17 GMT
|
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. I suspect that is what will happen; it sounds like a device to defer the policing of MOTs for applicable cars from the DoT to third parties. The irony is post '60 cars may go up in value if in the long term restriction usages or other clauses come to light on pre '60 stuff. -Amazo
|
|
Last Edit: May 21, 2012 13:27:31 GMT by babyboomer
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 13:54:51 GMT
|
The press release states that the option to have a pre 1960 vehicle MOT'd if you so desire will still be available. Doh - missed that when I read it ![:-[](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/embarrassed.png) 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. TBH, I think they should do that anyway, even for cars driven only for a few miles a year. Plenty can go wrong from just standing, especially the brakes.... My other heap is a '61 but were it pre '60, I'd still want to MOT it. Aside from the reasons that I mentioned in an earlier post, it's useful to have the MOT tester double check the car, as they should hopefully catch anything that I may have missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:04:45 GMT
|
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. Yay scene! Expect to see more "barn find" volkswagens. Sent from my A500 using ProBoards
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:06:35 GMT
|
I don't quite understand why they have introduced this and why it was thought necessary. Personally I think the MOT is a good thing, as many major faults have been pointed out by MOT testers on several occasions on our older cars - my Austin 7 had a brake leak which I had not noticed and I'm very glad the tester was able to spot it. It will be interesting to see how it affects the prices of pre-60 cars as well.
|
|
|
|
skinnylew
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 5,546
Club RR Member Number: 11
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:33:12 GMT
|
In all honesty how many pre-60 cars are used daily or even weekly? I can't see there being more than a few hundred, and the numbers affected by this will be in the thousands, not tens of thousands.
Right off to ebay to find pre 60's shed lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:34:40 GMT
|
I don't quite understand why they have introduced this and why it was thought necessary. This. And what Akku said. It all just seems a bit pointless really. Yes it saves the owners the cost of a test and potentially a retest, but if you're going to pay out on doing the repairs necessary then surely you're not saving that much. I wonder if in fact having an MOT will increase the value, RWD GR8 4 DRIFTIN MOT NOT RUSTY OLD CHOD-style. Overall, I vote MEH.
|
|
Last Edit: May 21, 2012 14:35:27 GMT by Rich606
1989 Peugeot 205. You know, the one that was parked in a ditch on the campsite at RRG'17... the glass is always full. but the ratio of air to water may vary.
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:34:40 GMT
|
I guarantee that this time next year they will be more 1950's Land Rovers and Morris Minors on the road then there is this year...
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:34:55 GMT
|
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? This ^ over and over again. It'll create uncertainty and bubbles in the values of cars either side of the cut off, it'll create more ringing opportunities and incentives, it'll let the insurers take another pound of flesh... I really wish it was, as is being presented in some news outlets, a reduction in red tape for sensible vehicle owners who can be trusted to keep their much loved old cars in tip-top nick but I think it's just passing the policing of pre-1960 vehicle condition onto the insurance companies. There could be something in the details of this that gives a hint to the plans for when the DVLA local offices are shut, that consultation made extensive reference to passing things off to partners, though much more overtly than this method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:45:01 GMT
|
Huge dose of WTF here. I just got back from testing a 1932 car, and the area Inspector popped in for his regular random check while I was on. Nobody mentioned this! Not the inspector, nor the AE from the garage (whose main business is MoTing classic cars for the local Morgan dealer/historic specialist) nor the specialist who collected the car. No-one said ANYTHING so I suspect that they don't know, or it isn't actually happening.
I'm off to read the links!
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:52:55 GMT
|
"Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money."
i can't see any garage/engineer writing you a special note to say its in safe and proper condition for the road for fear of serious legal reprisals when someone from vosa says it isnt..... they'll offer you an MOT!!
1st small play in a larger game? letting out some rope so that a few careless owners of this new class of mot & tax free historic vehicle drop a few clangers and hang themselves, then gov turn on the various bodies that represent us and say "you can't be trusted, here's the new heavy handed rule book?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 14:57:27 GMT
|
well, I've read through the consultation document, and the question/responses document, I'm still confused. Where exactly does it say they are doing this, and a date is set for implementation?
Another point to note - they (VOSA?DfT etc) haven't even been able to get the parliamentary time necessary to implement last years changes to the MoT test yet, leaving the whole thing "pending" until some as yet undisclosed time in the summer.....
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
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: 11,715
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:01:45 GMT
|
click the link i posted, its the DoT press release saying they're scrapping it effective 12th november. granted that is all it says, but its still a statement of intent and a date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:04:58 GMT
|
Ah, in the press release. Watch and wait as Vosa manage not to do anything about it for at least 2 years ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Meanwhile in the real world... ![](http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k198/scaryoldcortina/DSCF4438.jpg) I'm actually going to miss testing stuff like this if it happens. Much more fun than moderns.
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:06:35 GMT
|
If this was to go ahead I don't think it would be such a good idea as the possibility of neglect to become common place would be very dangerous indeed...
Having said that I doubt there are many (current) pre-1960 car owners who feel that way towards their motors...?!
This is a bobbins idea to me, it'd be much more worthwhile (again, to me!) to re-introduce the rolling 25year tax exemption thingy again but I doubt that will occur...
To be honest if this does happen it would be good but only if the cars that are on the road are still looked after by the owners and how do we know that that will actually be the case...?!
|
|
***GARAGE CURRENTLY EMPTY***
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:10:35 GMT
|
Hey, Just had a hugely positive thought! I can keep mayday taxed and insured without having to pay myself to test it once a year! YAY! ![](http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k198/scaryoldcortina/DSCF3091.jpg) Watch out nuns and kittens!
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:12:17 GMT
|
I only use my Buick once a week, I never crash, the ticket expires this week and I have manflu so CBA to take it up for a test. Think if I ask nicely they'll let me of testing it? LOL
|
|
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
|
|
The Doctor
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 3,435
Club RR Member Number: 48
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:13:07 GMT
|
Overhere the rule is allready in action, but it's not working as you guys think, and being a european rule, it will probably work the same in the UK. Overhere cars build before 1 januari 1960 are MoT exempt AFTER their first MoT after januari this year. So it's not like you can pull a rotter from the shed and drive it, it has to be in decent condition first, to pass it's last MoT. What happens to it after that, remains a mystery ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:15:17 GMT
|
Its been like that since... Well, 1960, in Norway. I don't think its had an adverse effect on the nun\kitten\schoolchildren population ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21, 2012 15:21:17 GMT
|
The reason we had the MOT introduced in the 1960s over here was a significant increase in road fatalities due to poorly maintained vehicles. Different nations have different temperaments. Thats why if you go to Italy and find a square full of bars its full of families and people chatting the night away over a drink or two,whereas you go to the same in the UK and it resembles the opening of The Running Man.
I am more bothered about the time and effort being wasted on this measure than any real road safety issues. I'm also concerned this is a thin end of a wedge of older cars being treated differently... We shall see.
|
|
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 15:24:13 GMT
|
In the Q&A pdf....
uh-huh.
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
|