Classic Car MOT

[Kingswood90]

I came across this on another forum, and thought it may be of interest..

classicaware box
Classic Aware: you know your car? Prove it.

02/04/2015/in Press Releases /
Brand new UK campaign promotes importance of having one’s classic properly maintained
Response to government and EU plans for younger classic vehicles to be MoT-exempt
Movement backed by CAR SOS presenter Fuzz Townshend
Classic Car Weekly readers also inspirational to the campaign


A brand new campaign, “Classic Aware”, is officially launched today to promote the importance of having one’s classic vehicle inspected and maintained on a regular basis.

Since November 2012, obligatory MoT tests have been scrapped for any vehicle registered prior to 1 January 1960. When the forthcoming EU Roadworthiness Directive becomes active in 2018, a larger number of vehicles may be affected as the Directive calls for 30-year-old (and older) vehicles with no substantial changes made to them, to be given some form of exemption from testing.

Whilst it may not be a legal requirement to have a current MoT on one’s classic, the burden of responsibility falls onto the individual driving the vehicle at the time of any accident and/or offence.

The new campaign intends to encourage classic vehicle owners to take charge by refusing to rely solely on home-checks, but substitute the no-longer compulsory MoT with appropriate safety checks and thorough inspections by independent specialists.



Classic Aware’s mission statement: Prove it.

Is your car roadworthy? Prove It.

You only do 1000 Miles A Year? Prove It.

You know your car? Prove It.



The new movement has the enthusiastic support of TV presenter, classic car garage owner, Classic Friendly founder and Cherished Cars insurer Carole Nash brand ambassador Fuzz Townshend, who also inspired it, as well as Bauer Media publication Classic Car Weekly and PR consultancy AV PR.

“I am but one of the many voices rising from within the classic car world,” said Fuzz. “Owner inspections might miss crucial clues that affect classic cars more deeply than modern cars (which have more automated safety systems in place); once compulsory testing is removed, there would be very little between the road and some 650,000 cars. Statistically, the government talks about classic cars only being involved in 0.03% of road accidents, but any number of lives lost is significant, and it is only a matter of time before self-regulating, occasional checks take their toll.”

CCW editor Keith Adams is equally vociferous: “we’re opposing the proposed move, in the strongest terms, and I’m hoping the wider industry will, too. Insurers, especially now, should look at the implications, and consider how they can persuade their policy holder to test their cars, regardless of age.”

Whilst there are those who do not oppose plans to make more and more classic cars MoT-exempt, it is clear from CCW readers’ comments that Classic Aware will gather momentum with the public, insurers, the UK media and garages’ support.

Classic Aware has its own dedicated website: www.classicaware.com.

Tags: av pr, CLASSIC AWARE, classic car weekly, Fuzz Townshend

[designergraphics]

I'm not very good mechanically so I'm happy to put my car through an M.O.T. for peace of mind. I'd hate to think I'd caused an accident because my car was dangerous and it's good to know that other cars have been tested so most accidents should be caused by driver error. An M.O.T. is also an indication that a prospective purchase is roadworthy, although not in all cases as I've learned from personal experience. I wouldn't mind an M.O.T. being made compulsory but free of charge for cars over thirty years old though, now that would be something I'd happily go along with.
Clive

[milothedog]

Here's another way to look at it. And I'm in favour of my car being MOT exempt BTW.


People like myself Know what's safe and what isn't And so do many other owners/enthusiasts with experience and do some of their own work who have classic cars as a Hobby / interest.

Owners who are unaware / unable to maintain and service their own cars invariably use a specialist garage, so when the car goes in for repair or service they will invariably pick up on any issues and alert the owner as they will want the work.

I can't see what the fuss is all about to be honest, for heavy road going plant like big cranes etc and Fun Fair / Travelling Circus HGV's they are all MOT exempt and have been for years, and still are as far as I know.

Ian.

[LAMBRETTLAD]

This is a no brainier ,after all you can't install a gas hob without a certificate,cars are just as dangerous ,I had my 1957 lambertta MOTED, the logic seems flawed becase it's old not mot,but 3years old with better building technology must be tested

[milothedog]

This is a no brainier ,after all you can't install a gas hob without a certificate,cars are just as dangerous ,I had my 1957 lambertta MOTED, the logic seems flawed becase it's old not mot,but 3years old with better building technology must be tested

So maybe it's time to licence the industry then like they do with Aircraft and stop any Tom, Dick or Harry from playing with Safety critical items

[Mark S]

How about an annual roadwortiness and safety check on a set list of critical items, carried out to a recognized standard for a fixed price by an independent non-specialist of your choice (with no axe to grind). Make this annual check a legal requirement and ensure it has been done before issuing a tax disc. Any thoughts on a name for such a test?

[Stag About Town]

I can remember what happened before MOTs. If you had an older car or if they had any concerns, the insurance companies would demand an engineers report which was less regulated than the MOT. A few of us teenagers had a 1937 Packard which had to get that report before being insured, third party of course.
John

[milothedog]

How about an annual roadwortiness and safety check on a set list of critical items, carried out to a recognized standard for a fixed price by an independent non-specialist of your choice (with no axe to grind). Make this annual check a legal requirement and ensure it has been done before issuing a tax disc.

Any thoughts on a name for such a test?

Money Maker

[wilf]

Even though I might consider myself reasonably able to assess the roadworthiness or otherwise of my car, I am lucky in that the local village garage is both a classics specialist and an MOT testing station, and so I value his second opinion and am quite happy to spend the MOT fee each year. He has helped me pin down, for example, some steering play and cost-effectively reduce it. (inner track rod end when I thought it was the rack itself).

The vast majority of car-oriented folk I know feel the same way. And I also know some who shouldn't be allowed to open the bonnet let alone attempt any repairs, they too need the MOT.

The MOT isn't prefect, but it is infinitely preferable to not having one at all.

[marshman]

I am another one in the "keep the MoT" camp. I too am, in my opinion, reasonably able to tackle most if not all jobs on a car - I have been restoring cars on and off since the early 1980's. However I strongly objected to the pre 1960 exemption and also think any extension of this or relaxation of MoTs for "classic cars" is wrong. Since the pre 1960's exemption I have continued to take any exempt car for its annual test.

Four main reasons:

1. It is always good to have a second opinion, someone independent to check over your work - it is easy to miss/overlook things.

2. Although many owners do cherish their classics and do servicing and other work themselves if they are competent or take them to a garage if not, there are many who for whatever reason - usually with the excuse of "saving money" either do not bother to take their car to a garage - classic car specialists can be expensive - or try to do the work themselves or simply do not bother relying on "if it ain't broke don't fix it!". How many people out their think that the annual MoT is actually a service? just speak to any MoT tester and they will tell you plenty of stories.

3.How many people have a rolling road to test the brakes properly, or even have access to one - other than via a garage doing an MoT?. A quick run up the road and a dab on the brakes will not show up faults like sticking callipers or one of the rear brakes not being very efficient. I have taken cars for an MoT confident they are OK and the brake test has shown an imbalance in the brakes, or one rear brake hardly working, or a sticking calliper - all on a car that appeared to pull up "smart and straight".

4. Finally, MoT exempt leads to cars like this .... (ebay item no. 201330691500 in case the long link doesn't work!)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/STANDARD-10-TRIUMPH-GREEN-CHERISHED-NUMBER-PLATE-RYN-757-/201330691500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2ee03e8dac&nma=true&si=ib3grZdKF5FmxLekG3YlZ2g%252FeCY%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

being sold to unsuspecting people - no way should this car even get near a road yet it is advertised as taxed and MoT exempt, runs and drives. The inner sills have nearly disappeared and there is no evidence of the outer sill. I am currently restoring one of these and as with most monocoque construction cars - no sill - no strength. It also blatantly states seized rear cylinders and a "bit or welding required", but it runs and drives and is taxed! There have been many, many others like this on eBay and elsewhere - ticking timebombs - why? because they don't need an MoT - never mind the fact that they still need to be roadworthy, i.e. capable of passing an MoT. I have seen them advertised as "rolling restoration projects".

I make no apologies for the long post but I feel very strongly about it. In then end it will end in tears - stricter regulation of classics and more expensive insurance.

Roger

[Tootalltony]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11348271/AA-issues-warning-to-classic-car-owners-after-MG-folded-like-a-penknife.html

Unfortunately not all cars that are MOTd are road worthy, I'm just having shell of a lot of welding done after taking my Stag to local MOT centre rather than the oft called ' classic friendly MOT centre'
( and my car still has another 3 months of its current MOT still to run.)
I'm not blaming the PO , and I understand 'caveat emptor', but really when I bought the car in October last year and have since been carrying around my wife and 6 month old son I thought it might at least not end up like the poor chap above and yet clearly it wasn't safe to be on the road. MOTs need to assess different criteria for classics, we need something

[stuart]

I think that underlying these posts is the recognition of a need for expert verification of a car's roadworthiness. Many classic car owners enjoy carrying out their own repairs and maintenance but it can't be denied that levels of skill vary dramatically. From time to time there are posts from members seeking help when it becomes apparent that they have refitted parts the wrong way round etc. The mind boggles at the consequences of such errors involving more fundamental items than polybushes (a recent post). A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and I for one would welcome an inspection of all classic cars, including mine and my own work.

[marshman]

[QUOTE=Tootalltony;313525
MOTs need to assess different criteria for classics, we need something[/QUOTE]

I disagree Tony. Firstly the MG in the article was not said to be unroadworthy, the comment in the article was just a statement of the obvious (to me at least) that older classic cars were never designed to properly protect the occupants when some "blind" idiot drives into them. Secondly, you can get a "dodgy" MoT on any car. The principles of "safety" checks for any car are the same, look for structural damage/corrosion, check correct operation of lights, steering, brakes etc. Check the tyres and suspension etc. etc. no need for any changes to check a classic.

An MoT is never going to find all the corrosion on a car. I am currently "restoring" a 1995 AX Diesel - don't ask long story! - it started off as just a bit of welding - and I did have a good look over the car and was well aware of the weak spots before I started - but the horrors hidden under the factory underseal are really quite scary - no MoT guy could have seen/known the full extent:

PICT0201.jpgPICT0205.jpgPICT0207.jpgPICT0209.jpgPICT0211.jpg

The pics show a sequence where I pressure washed the underside and then homed in on just one of many dodgy looking areas. 90% of the corrosion was well hidden under a thick layer of underseal so an MoT testers "hammer" wouldn't have easily detected it. By the time I had cut out all the rusty metal I had effectively cut right through the front passenger chassis leg - the drivers side doesn't look any better. The AX floor pan is the same as a Peugeot 106 which ceased production in 2003 and the steel on an AX is far better protected than on the last of the 106's - I know because there are several of those in the family as well.

My point is we probably need more, tighter, inspection of older cars, not less - and probably better training of MoT testers when it comes to signs to look for of corrosion on older cars.

Roger

[davidf]

Definitely agree we need to keep the MoT for classics. However well we care for our cars, and however competent we are, that independent test can find something we might have overlooked.

Whether it should focus just on safety, and skip some of the more recent 'political' items such as emissions (because the mileages are so low that the impact is minimal), is a point for more discussion.

I do wonder if the insurance companies might demand these tests anyway, even if they are not a legal requirement.

[DJT]

Not only do I believe an annual independent safety check is essential for all road vehicles (including those currently exempt!), but I wish that there was a reminder system in place like there is for VED. I just found out last night that the MOT for my Son's 2008 Focus expired on 9th March! So I now have to make a grovelling call to my friendly garage first thing this morning to see if they will take it in today, and I'll have to lend him our Skoda to get around in until it is sorted! Son no longer lives at home so I leave him to remember these things.