1960 mot

Ultrasonic

Gloomendoom wrote: »

IIRC Certain vehicles can already be legally driven on public roads without an annual MoT test. Fire engines and breakdown trucks spring to mind...

Interesting to see your list of exceptions. Most of them are for vehicles that are checked in some other way, but not all. Odd.

Much as I hate paying for an MOT test, I do support the idea of an annual test of all vehicles. I'm still struggling to see how anyone can justify MOT tests for most vehicles on the grounds of checking they are road-worthy (safe) but then not do so for the oldest cars on the road.

Gloomendoom

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Interesting to see your list of exceptions. Most of them are for vehicles that are checked in some other way, but not all. Odd.

Much as I hate paying for an MOT test, I do support the idea of an annual test of all vehicles. I'm still struggling to see how anyone can justify MOT tests for most vehicles on the grounds of checking they are road-worthy (safe) but then not do so for the oldest cars on the road.

Probably because, generally, they aren't driven very often. I wouldn't be surprised if, statistically speaking, they are involved in fewer accidents than younger vehicles.

Quite how that may change if they are not MoT'd is anyone's guess. Like I said earlier, mine will be getting tested, officially or unofficially.

marlot

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Will you seriously be able to legally drive a pre-1960 car on UK roads without a valid MOT? How can that possibly be justified?

Many of these cars only do 200 or 300 miles a year. I'm in favour of dropping the MOT for them. I know my local museum can't afford the MOT fees, so many of the cars stay in the building when they are perfectly roadworthy - with this new scheme they could come out now and again.

As the country which was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, I think we should be backing plans which allow the history to be kept alive.

With the non-existent passive safety in the cars (no airbags, collapsable steering columns, side impact protection etc) they're more of a threat to the driver and passengers than anyone else.

Most MOT testers don't know how to test these old cars anyway.

Here are the stats:
good-garage-guide.honestjohn.co.uk/mot-data-the-mot-files/the-mot-files-cars-registered-before-1960/

Between October 2010 and September 2011 there were 55,000 MoTs for cars registered before 1960 (out of 24.5m MoT tests) and the overall pass rate for all the years combined was 85.2 per cent. That's actually better than the pass rate for 3-year old cars (80%).

Pre WW2 cars seem to fare well, and 1950s cars not quite so well. I guess if I were creating the legislation it would be tempting to make the cut off date 1940 based on these figures. But I guess the government have the advantage of knowing what the failure reasons are for the rest, and so whether they are mainly a hazard to themselves or to others.

Given that 20% of vehicles fail their first MOT, and there are a lot more of them on the road than pre-1960 vehicles perhaps it would make more sense to have MOTs for newer cars from 1 year old?

I can't believe the number of people decrying this as a reduction in general road safety - when was the last time you saw a pre-1960 car on the road, let alone being driven in a manner likely to cause harm to the driver, passenger or those around them?

My final thought: If we really wanted to cut the number of deaths on the road we could bring in compulsory top-up driver training every 3-5 years. But we don't - because when it comes down to it, we don't really want to improve that standard of driving enough to go through the pain.

EDIT: If I owned a pre-1960 car (which I don't), I'd still be tempted to take it in for an annual MOT. But I understand it is getting incredibly hard to find one which knows how to test cars with trunnions. king pins, acetylene lamps, taper wheel bearings etc. As a result, they're in danger of giving wrong advice. For example, I've heard tell of MOT testers telling owners that the free play on their taper bearing is dangerous and they need tightening - when tightening them is actually the dangerous act (they're designed to have a small amount of play and tightening them can make them fail soon after). How can MOTs which make the car more dangerous be justified?

Joe_Horner

The problem is, the "only drive x miles" argument is spurious and actually increases the chance of serious faults with some systems - especially brakes and steering. Cylinders, pipes and joints tend to seize or corrode faster when sitting still over winter than they do in use. Tyres and other rubber bits also suffer from lack of use, as can electrical connectors.

Many classic owners who "hibernate" their cars face these problems in the spring each year already. When you have unassisted drum brakes all round, one seized wheel cylinder is a problem. When you have single circuit brakes that will fail completely if a pipe bursts that's also a problem.

The "enthusiast" owners who's used it should understand that so they're either not quite as knowledgeable with their cars as they think or they've deliberately overlooked that in putting forward their argument.

Suggesting that "the police will stop the bad ones" is nuts. Firstly because it can take maybe a day, some filler, and a dozen rattle cans to get completely unroadworthy cars looking perfectly presentable and second because, unlike the other countries which do this sort of thing, we don't actually have any police on the road to speak of. ANPR cameras can't make a judgement call on the condition of a car.

The financial arguments don't add up either. By the Govt's own figures, there are around 170000 of these cars on the road (at the moment - it will be interesting to see how that increases!).

So even if each test "costs" vosa a tenner - which it doesn't - that's a massive 1.7 million saved. Sounds a lot but it's nothing in terms of Government finance!

The owner's complaints that it's "too expensive" are laughable as well. Even at full price (currently £54) it's hardly a major part of a motoring budget, or a high annual cost for your main hobby - how much is a gm membership nowadays? The only time it gets "too expensive" is when there's lots wrong and you need repairs to pass.

The official fail figures don't say how man of those cars are put in to "service and give it a test" - cars that are likely to fail if simply tested. And the only way to save any real expense is to drop the service aspect as well.

Finally, even if there is some truth that there isn't a problem with current owners, what of the ones that start buying on EBay because they can have road legal transport just by buying a rotted old Herald or Standard or whatever, 50 quid of filler and paint, and an £80 classic policy? They're not in the classic scene at the moment but they will be soon enough.

As for museums etc, there's no reason that an exemption (even limited mileage) couldn't have been granted for those provided they have appropriate maintenance records. and the cars belong to the museum itself rather than an individual.

marlot

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The problem is, the "only drive x miles" argument is spurious ...

I have some sympathy for your argument, but as they're only going to be on the road for 8-10 hours a year, and mostly at low speed the risk is mostly with the driver/passengers. As they are the ones who create the risk, they can decide whether they're prepared to travel in the car. They can always choose to go for an MOT if they want to.

I think I've only seen ten pre-1960 cars on the road in the last year, and they were all on their way to the local show and going around 20mph. I think I'm prepared to take the risk!

I notice that you didn't pick up on my final edit point that the old technology used in these cars means that a number of MOT stations are giving dangerous advice, incorrectly failing cars which should pass and vice versa.

Joe_Horner

Sorry, it was quite a long post and I didn't mean to miss anything.

I'm not entirely sure that whether there are "suitable MOT testers" is a valid concern - in fact, if anything, it brings into question the overall quality of those testers who can't cope with these cars.

It's long been accepted by most classics owners that it's unwise t o take your old car to "MOT supermarkets" and to use a "proper mechanic" instead. Despite rumours, there are still plenty of those around - people who work in that trade because they like and understand machinery.

Quite a lot of the MOT test is still a matter of the tester's professional judgment, which is how it should be. There is guidance available in the manual for most things out of the ordinary (such as the 3 inches of play allowed in non-rack & pinion steering!)

Other things, like the slight play you need in taper wheel bearings, are matters of basic engineering sense. If a tester isn't aware of something like that then, to be honest, I don't want him anywhere near any car I own because he obviously has little interest in cars beyond when his pay-cheque's coming or how big he can make his tyres / exhaust commission this month.

With even a little mechanical understanding things like trunnions are easy enough to check - the basic rule of thumb is that makers didn't design suspension to let thinks move in odd directions!

There just might be a case for specialist knowledge being needed for real vintage or veteran cars, when the makers were still experimenting with what worked and what didn't, but anything post-war is close enough to "modern" that a tester who can't test them really shouldn't be testing!


eta: as an example of "good" testing, the first time I took one of our Dafs to the tester we now use (a local garage but certainly not an "old boy" and had no other "classic" customers at the time) he advised play in one of the front lower balljoints. There was about 2mm of vertical movement, which would generally be a fail on a modern car, but no sideways play.

He looked at the joint, realised that the way it was designed meant it couldn't possibly separate on the road, so advised instead of failing. Sure enough, on checking the manual, they specified replacement at "more than 1/8 inch" play as long as there was no sideways movement - so up to about 3mm was allowed on that joint even when they were current.

That's the standard of mechanical understanding that anyone certifying the roadworthiness of any car should be expected to have!

Ultrasonic

marlot wrote: »

Here are the stats:
good-garage-guide.honestjohn.co.uk/mot-data-the-mot-files/the-mot-files-cars-registered-before-1960/

Very interesting to see the stats and read your thoughts. I would though be of the view that if 15% of cars are currently failing MOT tests that would be a strong argument that they should still be tested.

The only difficulty is the issue you raise over if MOT test stations can actually adequately and safely test pre-1960 cars, but to me that is an issue of training/advice and not a reason to just give up and decide not to test them at all.

marlot

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Very interesting to see the stats and read your thoughts. I would though be of the view that if 15% of cars are currently failing MOT tests that would be a strong argument that they should still be tested.

By that argument we should be testing 2 year old cars too, given that 20% of three year old cars fail.

marlot

Ultrasonic wrote: »

The only difficulty is the issue you raise over if MOT test stations can actually adequately and safely test pre-1960 cars, but to me that is an issue of training/advice and not a reason to just give up and decide not to test them at all.

Not sure that training mechanics to diagnose issues on 50-100 year old cars is that viable. Even if you trained them, it might be years before they next encountered a pre-1960 car, let alone one with a particular strange quirk that they have to be aware of. It has worked until now, because enough garages have old timers who maybe worked on cars like this early in their career, and just about remember enough. But those people are now retiring.

A good compromise might be a check for corrosion around critical areas and test of the brakes. Maybe a £10 or £20 check?

As it is, the government has decided that they represent a small enough risk to take them out of testing altogether.

Ultrasonic

marlot wrote: »

By that argument we should be testing 2 year old cars too, given that 20% of three year old cars fail.

Absolutely. The exemption for new cars doesn't make sense either.