Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[peter scott]

https://youtu.be/OCx4dTZ_7dg?si=5Hs59WnBtpziI-7U
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[Ray White]

The real problem is with the DVLA rather than with old cars. In my view, this monstrous QUANGO is not fit for purpose and should be disbanded.

[alastairq]

I do not understand why the DVLA is getting involved with DVSA business?

I suspect the DVLA is having earache from government [of whatever colour] concerning the bending and twisting of 'Historic' rules to suit certain individuals?

'Roadworthiness' of vehicles is DVSA business.

There already exists adequate legislation regarding roadworthiness.

All that really is needed is increased enforcement?

I always half expect to see targeted enforcement active around the many ad hoc ''classic'' car shows that abound.

In much the same way as various motoring events seemed to attract target enforcement of trailer regulations?

If the DVLA is disbanded, does that mean folk are in favour of eliminating the driving licenses? WHich, after all, are not a universal requirement, it seems?
As well as eliminating VED taxation of vehicles?
Making road charging more realistic? Or increasing taxation on fuel?

Both of which rather remove one of the more attractive reasons for running an old vehicle?

[Or rather, leaving the so-called 'hobby' to only those with a sufficient surplus of personal wealth they don't have to worry about road charges or fuel costs?]

I think the DVLA, like the DWP, is much maligned.
Especially when the reality is, the agency is stumbling under the weight of insufficient staffing [as is the DWP]...poor wages, etc?

IE, reduce staffing for cost saving appearances, , & never mind the increasing height of the ''In-trays'' of those that are left?


Personally I have never had 'issues' with the service from DVLA or DSA [DVSA as it became].

Most complaints I hear about concern medical issues and licences.....and the medical side of things is not under the control of the DVLA at all.

As always in the UK, there is too much demand [too much ''demanding,'' as well!] for the services, and not enough resources to expedite matters as the public wishes [like, yesterday??]
_________________
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.

[Ray White]

I just think there is too much interferance from officialdom in our lives full stop.

[alastairq]

But if left to our own devices, it is anarchy that reigns.

One person's 'common sense' is another person's 'total idiocy!'


Etc etc
_________________
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.

[Ray White]

[alastairq]

[Ray White]

Because I am approaching 70 I am having to apply for a new driving license with a photo on it.

Nothing has changed... but a bunch of pen pushers is just showing how they are in a position to bully us.

It is all part of officialdom's tentacles reaching ever further into our lives.

Never ending unless you turn up your toes...and even then they tax you!

[Vintage Fly Guy]

I must say that I thought the MOT exemption for classic cars was a pretty daft idea when it was brought in. For those who keep their vehicles well-maintained, there should be nothing to fear from putting their vehicle/s through an annual MOT test. Surely, only those owners of poorly maintained and/or rust weakened death-traps would want to avoid an MOT test?

From a legal point, it's an offence to drive an 'unroadworthy' car; so having an MOT certificate to indicate that I've taken reasonable steps to check that my car is safe to drive is well worth the 55 quid that an MOT Test costs. Where else could I get a comprehensive vehicle safety check by a certificated inspector for that sort of money?

Yes, I know that an MOT certificate is not proof that a car is roadworthy, however, it would act as evidence that a through inspection (carried out to a legally recognised standard by a certificated inspector) has taken place within the last 12 months.

God forbid, in the event of a defect or structural failure causing a serious accident, injury or death, I'd warrant that a current MOT certificate would carry more evidential weight in a court of law than a vehicle owner standing in the dock and trying to convince a Magistrate or Jury that they had actually carried out a through safety check during the last 12 months.

So I think 55 quid for an MOT test is worth every penny, and it should be compulsory for any classic car, so long as it's age-related in its requirements, and is non-damaging to a well maintained and structurally sound vehicle.

[Penman]

[Ray White]

I agree with VFG (despite my misgivings about Big Brother intrusion) because although most preserved vehicles may well be well maintained, the Test catches those cars which would otherwise get under the Radar.

The suggestion that so called historic vehicles should have a "one time" test has merit although I think the Australian requirement for a 'pre sale' inspection would be better. If a car is offered as 'roadworthy' then it is only reasonable that the claim can be verified.

[alastairq]

[alastairq]

deleted
_________________
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.

[alastairq]

deleted
_________________
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.

[alastairq]

deleted
_________________
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.