General Possibility of MOT Exemption for all Classic 500s

Currently reading:
General Possibility of MOT Exemption for all Classic 500s

Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,225
Points
1,612
Location
Nairn
The proposal for this to be applied to pre-1960 vehicles a few years ago progressed quickly to become a reality.It sparked up lots of debate amongst classic car owners, with most online postings that I saw claiming that the pious owners would have their cars tested despite being exempt. It turns out that only 7% actually do.
I would welcome this; a bit of money saved and a bit less stress since our cars are a bit baffling to some testers. For some people the MOT must seem pointless with only a few miles between tests.
A key factor is that cars would not have to be substantially changed from original, with points being awarded for non-departures from spec......I kid you not.:) 8 points are needed in total and luckily, original engine is only worth 1 point. I think most cars owned here on the Forum would be OK, but I can think of the odd possible exception.:D
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest
 
At the risk of causing a lot of raised hackles, I totally DISAGREE with MOT exemption. The vast majority of classic car owners have no immediate access to lifting equipment (ramps) or a pit. Therefore it becomes very difficult to properly examine the underside of the car---which continues to corrode even when little mileage is undertaken between tests. Also, brake fluid is hydroscopic (absorbs water), so the brake test can check for safe braking (and it is amazing how people can become used to, and adjust their driving to, poor brakes). By giving the car an annual proper, professional check-over, safety is ensured. It may be that classic cars have a slightly re-jigged test to take into account their simplicity (vis-a vie modern cars) and their much lower annual mileage--but they MUST be checked annually if they are required to be used on the public highway.
thumb.gif
smile.gif
 
So 8 points or more you means you are exempt is that correct? I have only skim read it and it's Saturday night. Also no alcohol has passed my lips.

I agree with it but I think it would be preferable to weed out the very small minority of owners of cars from that era that don't maintain their cars very well and only drive them because they think they are cool.

You see quite a few trendy hipsters in London driving something from the 60's or 70's and they wouldn't know the difference between a screwdriver and spanner! So maybe have the 8 point rule but have a mandatory test every 2 or 3 years. You couldn't do it on mileage because they would be too much clocking going on.

My mileage per annum is lucky to reach 200!!!! There again I also have a modern tucked away in the garage that is 11 years old and has only done 24,000 miles and about 2,000 in the last 6 years. So I should get an exemption for that as well.:D

Also if you do too many miles per annum in a car of that era it should be made to have a test twice a year!!!! Cough, Cough!!!!:p
 
They have come up with several options, including a reduced annual or bi-annual test.
They expect VHI's (Vehicles of Historic Interest) used commercially to continue to have the MOT.
A vehicle needs to gain 8 points to qualify as a VHI to avoid the old trick of giving a modern vehicle an old identity to avoid tax etc. So 5 for original chassis, 1 for the engine, 2 for axles etc.
There will always be plonkers driving dangerous cars (sometimes quite safely). And there are some people driving safe cars dangerously and everything between.
The DoT have looked at statistics and the risk assessment shows that cars over 40 years old do not pose a significant threat to road safety, which just the same calculated risk that they do with cars under three years old. Owners are trusted to change tyres and brakes etc. on these.
It's a good point that an MOT can highlight things that even the most diligent owner (ahem:eek: ) can fail to notice; my brakes are "dangerous" because the drums at the back are ovalled, there is some corrosion on brake-pipes and the brake light switch is, let us say, a little unresponsive.:eek: But it passed because of the fact that the problems were all borderline...they may not be so tomorrow. So I have no answer to that charge. But I have ordered replacement parts.
As for those idiots who would run their car into the ground, committing the sacrilege of using them as an everyday vehicle,with no compassion for their elderly status, I think it's the drivers who need a checkup.:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
Hi, I agree with Tom testing is required to ensure vehicles are safe to use on the road. I also beleive the existing test is not that appropriate for our older vehicles. The Directive requires biennial tests to start after 4 years from new, therefore as suggested in the paper a Basic VHI test could be carried out biennially. There is mention of a limited mileage attached to the test requirement, not sure how this would work. With insurance you just phone and increase the mileage but an MOT do you book a test for the remainder of the year?
The 8 point rule, well if you have cut and welded any part of the body you could loose 5 points - wheel arch mods?, changed to rack and pinion another -2, modified engine i.e. not factory spec another -1 and installed disc brakes another -2 and so on. These deductions would only be applicable if the modifications have been carried out after 1988. So we could be OK.

Ralph
 
In Canada and the US where the car is king, there is no requirement for a vehicle check. The only exception (at least where I live) is when you are selling the vehicle, then it must be checked. If you ask me, this works really well. Classic cars are also exempt from emission tests.

Biennial vehicle tests sounds a bit overreaching to me. On another note why are you Brits forced to pay that TV antenna fee for passively intercepting magnetic waves :yuck:

We are driving a car that is about as safe as a pop can, the breaking ability of a transport truck, and with the bonus of having the fuel tank in the front of the car so we can be assured to fry in any head-on collision. That alone should be enough to have us all disqualified from driving these vehicles on modern roads. So I can understand why many of you would prefer to have required testing. However I still would rather have less government-knows-best type control. Didn't you used to drive 3 wheeled cars up in the north of England? What happened?
 
Didn't you used to drive 3 wheeled cars up in the north of England? What happened?

Your comments made me chuckle...so true.:D

The three-wheel Bond Minicar was first made in a factory a few hundred yards from my grandmas's house in Preston. It was possibly marginally less safe than a Fiat 500.:eek: All of the remaining examples will have been free of testing obligation for several years now and I haven't heard of them being involved in any pile-ups.;) One way and another I think the business moved to the Midlands and eventually we had the Bond Bug and the Reliant three wheelers.
Here's one I saw over 30 years ago.
greenbond by Peter Thompson, on Flickr
 
Hi, the problem is in Europe, we live in an ever increasing nanny state. There are so many groups trying to eliminate every conceivable risk that if they get their way we will not be allowed to do anything they perceive as risky. The European Government has had a large hand to play in this thinking. Please don't get me wrong there have been great strides in making our lives a lot safer, but as with all good things polititians don't know when to stop. So if I have to submit to biennial testing to keep me on the road then it's something I am willing to do as long as this is not the slippery slope to major restrictions in me using my classic car. I work in local authority and I am sad to say I have had heated conversations with the environmentalists about banning all classic and vintage cars as they are in their opinion unsafe, uneconomic and extremely polluting. They would like us all to give our cars up and use push bikes to get about. This is fine if you live close to your work and amenities and it doesn't rain most of the time. Sorry for the rant.

Ralph
 
. Sorry for the rant.

Ralph

That was no rant Ralph....good points made and I do think that in its favour, testing does help towards placating any philistine who accuses old cars of being dangerous.

You can relax though, because it's actually the EU. which has enabled this reform by directing that member states may actually exempt cars which are over 30 years old. In the UK it has been suggested that 30 is going a bit far.

It looks like they are trying to push through this legislation now whilst all the EU rules stil apply to us.

We are fortunate to have influential organisations in the UK that speak up for the interests of owners of older cars and I am confident that our cars will be zipping around without legal impediment for many years to come.
 
The governments preferred proposal is for 40 years with an annual HVI test along with a certification process to ensure the vehicle is not substantially altered. Yet again our government wishes to restrict our rights compared to main land Europe, even when they confirm we are one of the safest countries to drive in. I can see what they are trying to do, match the licensing rules for classics with testing. This seems a logical step but to keep all of Europe on the same page maybe the road fund, tax, exemption should be brought into line with the timescales detailed in the new Directive i.e. 30 years.

Ralph
 
"Didn't you used to drive 3 wheeled cars up in the north of England? What happened?"

I like Chris!:D It is good to see that he recognises that us sophisticated southerners would never stoop as low as only having three wheels on our cars and that this is purely a northern phenomenon!

There is one exception but I do recall that someone on this forum actually openly supports this minority southern group in the form of a sticker on their 500?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6238.JPG
    IMG_6238.JPG
    64.1 KB · Views: 15
It is good to see that he recognises that us sophisticated southerners would never stoop as low as only having three wheels on our cars and that this is purely a northern phenomenon!

There is one exception but I do recall that someone on this forum actually openly supports this minority southern group in the form of a sticker on their 500?

Yes...soppy southerners, when we was growing up we could only afford three wheels on were cars, some of us only had two.

Talking of T.I.T.s and fibreglass three-wheelers, I did a rare thing and went to a car show today. I was in Murf but not entered as I get bored and like to make a quick getaway. Anyway, this innocuous-looking three-wheeled "invalid-car" as described (I don't know if that's that invalid or in-valid) was there. Looking at the rear, which is the location I am always hope to find the engine, I was please to find that it had a two-cylinder, Kubota diesel engine.; a retrofit as these thigs might even have been electric. It was neatly done and the gearshafts and rubber connector blocks to the drive wheels had a very familiar look to them! And where have I seen that colour before?
MAL_1011 by Peter Thompson, on Flickr
MAL_1013 by Peter Thompson, on Flickr
I wondered later, in the interests of safety, if there isn't another issue with Fiat 500s A somewhat effete gentleman, who couldn't turn his eyes away from us as he reversed his car in the Lidl car-park, slowly but firmly scuffed his rear wing against another car. Now he may have been distracted by my stunning looks, but seeing as the young man at the car show asked me if I wanted senior citizens' entry (me being nearly 59 (correction...58):eek::eek::eek:), I suspect the gentleman was actually giving the adoring looks to Murf.:D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top