Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[alastairq]

[norustplease]

[Ray White]

[ukdave2002]

[Penman]

Have you ever read the list of MoT exemptions?

https://tinyurl.com/MoT-exemptions

Note item (i)

"Do as I say, not as I do"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_________________
Bristols should always come in pairs.

Any 2 from:-
Straight 6
V8 V10

[Ray White]

[alastairq]

[ukdave2002]

[Bitumen Boy]

[Ray White]

[Bitumen Boy]

[bjacko]

I think half the public servants spend their time dreaming up what they can add to the regulations/forms/etc and the other half spend their time passing the completed forms around the department. Nobody ever seems to reduce the requirements for anything!
_________________
1938 Morris 8 Ser II Coupe Utility (Pickup)
1985 Rover SD1 VDP

[Clactonguy]

I think avoiding an MOT by not being compulsory for older cars started on continent as they found data showing so few incidents etc UK had at that tiem at adopt ALL EU diktats .. though it is free now to do what it wishes. I have my old car tested every year without fail. MOT. can show me areas it might need service work /repairs. brakes .steering and bodywork for example are very important and whom can test own brakes to ensure they meet requirements other than a proper brake testing machine ? though trained in mechanical engineering I still want a qualified tester to check my car all over. peace of mind plus little worries about an insurance company trying to wriggle out of paying out if we have an accident an dit is going to cost a lot! ( friend worked for one and they will look for excuses to pay nil or minimum possible) hard part is when one says it is up to owner/driver to ensure vehicle is in a road worthy and safe condition..it come s down to argument over they might think and believe that! but in reality it being very unsafe. a simple way forward is for insurance companies to require a valid MOT each year .. if none given then either refuse to insure OR ensure premium reflects any risks ..eg an unsafe car involved in a road collision et c.

[Ray White]

I appreciate the argument that the M.O.T test may only be relevant on the day it is carried out... and that every driver has a responsibility to ensure their vehicle is roadworthy....

What worries me, however, is that in the real world, the same cars that I witnessed being M.O.T. failures on a regular basis when I worked as a "tester's assistant" are now exempt from any form of mandatory inspection.

I don't trust ALL owners of old cars to be as rigorous as the M.O.T. tester in maintaining their vehicles - even though some are. I wonder how many Morris Minors - as an entry level "classic" for example - are driving about with dangerous trunnions. These components failed even when they had been tested within the year - and the test narrowly avoided many a disaster - so how much more likely is a tragic accident now?

It is surely only a matter of time...

[alastairq]

Insurance companies cannot demand a vehicle has a valid MoT, if the vehicle is exempt from MoT. I had this out wth Hagerty some while ago now. They admitted they had provided the wrong information, and corrected their statements.

Whilst an MoT will highlight any failings that are relevant to having an MoT, they won't highlight any other failures to comply with the Law.
[I have listed a couple of examples before. Namely, a non-working speedo, or tinted glass in the front windows that will only allow less than 75% light through.
Nor will an MoT highlight serious corrosion if it is not visible to the tester. For example, a tester cannot remove plastic sill covers, etc, and inspect underneath.

What about the age of tyres? Whilst tyre age is checked for LGVs and PCVs, cars, etc are exempted from that rule. Remember the serious RTC involving an MGB which had decades-old Pirellis all round..the tyres failed, leading to the crash.
Yet, all the tyres complied with the Law.
As such, under the current rules, those tyres would pass an MoT!

Plus, there is the additional fact that a vehicle can have a valid MoT, yet be incapable of passing an MoT a week before the existing MoT expires.
This can, and will apply to all ages of vehicle, regardless of whether they have an exemption or not.
Thus can, and does, lead to complacency on the part of drivers [owners?] simply because there is a length of time their MoT has to run.

[The presence of advisories on an MoT doesn't mean the driver is actually going to do anything about them!}


Hence an Insurer will look for a lack of roadworthiness if seeking to mitigate costs.
This is mentioned in practically all policy T&Cs...

Like all insurance there is a reliance on the honesty of the proposer.

Failure to pay up simply because a vehicle is exempted from needing a valid MoT will land them in Court very quickly indeed. Then the costs they sought to avoid would skyrocket.

But, what to do about a vehicle which has a valid MoT, yet is unroadworthy [IE, fails to comply with the Laws of the land?]?
That is why the Law places the responsibility [the onus] on the driver.

The real issue at stake here is, how often do we see vehicle roadworthiness checks by the roadside?

Obviously a huge logistical problem with enforcement...It's not just for the one day every year...[or, one hour, if one knows how to wangle things]

Then there's the perceived 'safety' question?

A vehicle with but two working brakes can still travel around , and as long as it arrives without incident, is it unsafe?

As mentioned, the statistics actually tell us something very different from our fears.

Insurers also know this, from their records.

This country had the pre-1960 exemption, then the EU stepped in with their 30 year exemption. Which the UK government of the day refused to adopt, preferring the 40 year system instead.

What are the figures for pre-1960 vehicles being found unroadworthy?

I see mention of figures which point to a fair number of exempted vehicles being tested and failing an MoT...
Which, for me, to put things in perspective, happily fails to mention the percentage of non-exempted vehicles failing the MoT?

The realistic answer to our unwarranted fears seems to be, to voluntarily have one's pride n joy examined every now & then, for compliance with the Law?

Then points which an MoT test does not over, can be examined?
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.