[JC.]

Sign your name if you're opposed to pre '60 cars being exempt from the annual MOT test.
Much like the rolling tax exemption petition I doubt it'll get anywhere, but if you don't excersise your democratic rights how can you have any grounds to complain?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34434

-JC.

[fruit_n_veg]

(Original post by JC.)
Sign your name if you're opposed to pre '60 cars being exempt from the annual MOT test.
Much like the rolling tax exemption petition I doubt it'll get anywhere, but if you don't excersise your democratic rights how can you have any grounds to complain?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34434

-JC.

To be honest, I don't see any benefits whatsoever in removing it - I'd bet many pass MOTs anyway with either no/minor advisories or repair after minor fails. Even if they become MOT exempt, it doesn't exempt the vehicles from being at MOT standard. All it does is save owners nearly £60 a year for a test which by the looks of it will end up with insurers.

[JC.]

(Original post by Muscovite)
I literally couldn't care less about this.

Perhaps you might care if some bright spark decides to pull grandad's '59 Morris minor out of the garage that it's been mouldering in for the last 25 years, chucks some fresh petrol in it and then comes flying into the local town @ 60mph without a professional declaring it fit to be on the public highway.
Bet your house that it's going to be able to stop if you or a family member happening to be crossing the street infront of it?
No? I wouldn't either...

[Elwyn]

It does seem a bit crazy that the government has this idea that everyone who owns a pre-1960 car will keep them in top nick.

[Potally_Tissed]

Well that's a daft idea Signed

[CurlyBen]

That petition seems to have missed the single most important objection - potentially increased risk to the public!
I don't understand point number 2: "

Previously non-transferable, registrations without an MOT could be sold off." - to me that seems to be saying that cars couldn't previously be sold without an MOT. Pretty sure that's rubbish.
It'd be interesting to know if the new rules mean pre-1960s cars cannot get an MOT, rather than not being required to have one. If they can still be issued with an MOT I would imagine it will just become an insurance requirement, rather than a government one - in fact I think it already is.
In all honesty though, I doubt making these vehicles MOT exempt is going to make a major difference. I'm not sure why they're bothering with it though, as I doubt it will make much difference to owners either.

[BackDoorEntry]

This is some stupid ****. Pre 60s cars will have HORRIBLE emissions, yet they no longer even have to check for this in MOT... whereas other more modern and more safe cars are being penalised horribly for a slight increase in 'toxic' emissions?

Almost as pointless as when the US decided to declare a pizza a vegetable!

[TheHansa]

Why should they be exempt? If anything they'll be the least safe.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by BackDoorEntry)
This is some stupid ****. Pre 60s cars will have HORRIBLE emissions, yet they no longer even have to check for this in MOT... whereas other more modern and more safe cars are being penalised horribly for a slight increase in 'toxic' emissions?

Almost as pointless as when the US decided to declare a pizza a vegetable!

Off the top of my head I think it's only post '73 vehicles that have emissions checked by gas analyser, anything before that just has a visual check anyway. There's a lot less to go wrong with an old system though. Not that the handful of miles these cars will be doing will make the slightest difference to overall emissions!

[JO53PHS]

(Original post by Muscovite)
I'm sorry but; I just don't care - sorry

Why post then?

Nobody cares that you don't care if you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion

[JC.]

(Original post by BackDoorEntry)
This is some stupid ****. Pre 60s cars will have HORRIBLE emissions, yet they no longer even have to check for this in MOT... whereas other more modern and more safe cars are being penalised horribly for a slight increase in 'toxic' emissions?

Almost as pointless as when the US decided to declare a pizza a vegetable!

Emmisions are irrelevent.
It's far more important that the things are actually capable of stopping and don't have fred flintstone style floor pans!

[Herr]

Silly idea to MOT exempt a vehicle by age. While many or the vast majority of them would by now be owned by collectors or enthusiast it doesn't necessarily mean there is sufficient common sense not to operate an unsafe motor vehicle.

[BackDoorEntry]

(Original post by JC.)
Emmisions are irrelevent.
It's far more important that the things are actually capable of stopping and don't have fred flintstone style floor pans!

Tbh though, unless its a heap of junk (which would be unlikely, since maintenance costs will probably be higher than buying a modern car), the car is most likely to be well maintained. I doubt people would ride their vintage cars if they couldn't guarantee bringing it home in one piece!

IMO I think the issue is more about being fair and not lowering the expectations for the mechanical integrity of older cars. The opportunity to abuse this exemption and to throw an old car out on the road at speed (with the inability to stop safely) is certainly there, but I think there are far worse issues on the road atm

[JC.]

(Original post by BackDoorEntry)
Tbh though, unless its a heap of junk (which would be unlikely, since maintenance costs will probably be higher than buying a modern car), the car is most likely to be well maintained. I doubt people would ride their vintage cars if they couldn't guarantee bringing it home in one piece!

IMO I think the issue is more about being fair and not lowering the expectations for the mechanical integrity of older cars. The opportunity to abuse this exemption and to throw an old car out on the road at speed (with the inability to stop safely) is certainly there, but I think there are far worse issues on the road atm

I own a pre '60 vehicle - a '56 Ford Pop in original unrestored condition.
It's fitted with cable operated drum brakes and they have to be adjusted up every 500 or so miles to make sure they actually stop the car.
Any tom dick or harry with 3 grand in their pocket could buy one of these cars - and lets face it, most ford pops are knackered because they are, in real terms, worthless - and then go out and have a jolly with it.

The problem isn't the cars that are on the road now. The real issue is the cars that have been mouldering away in garages for 30 odd years that only effectively need 100 quids worth of insurance and some fresh petrol and can be used again. It's these cars that need keeping off the road.
To put it in perspective even further, I also own a very low mileage MGB made in '75. Now, this car had only done 14k miles between 1977 and april last year when I bought it. Furthermore, it had done only around 20 miles in the 5 years before I bought it.
In the last 12 months I've replaced every rubber component on the car relating to safety from tyres, to suspension bushes to brake hoses. Why? because rubber has a useful life of only around 5 years. The tyres on the car were older than me!
I'm quite satisfied I've got, as far as can be reasonably assessed, a perfectly safe classic car.

The problem is that the law is there to protect those of us who are conciencious and honest from the dregs of society who abuse the system.
The first time a rotten pre 60 car kills an innocent bystander and the condition of the vehicle is called in to question will snowball a massive ****storm.
What we don't want is the same situation as singapore currently has where classic vehicles are restricted to just 29 days useage per year.

This so called "gift" of mot exemption to pre 60 vehicles is the thin end of a very nasty wedge...

[gbduo]

Yeh but who in their right mind is going to spend £3k on a classic car to have a hoon in when you could spend £150 on a Fiesta and do the same thing?!

I dunno, there are so few pre 1960 cars on the road, that I find it hard to see the problem, but then the flip side is that because there are so few pre 1960 cars on the road, why shouldn't they have MOTs.

In saying that though, I bet there are far more dangerous 3 year old cars coming up to an MOT with dodgy tyres and brakes on mega miles than there is pre 1960 classic cars.

I am kinda non plussed either way, but it does seem a strange idea.

[JC.]

You have to get the 150 quid fiesta through an MOT though, Graham!
A lot of classic car owners maintain there car because they have to because they've got a set standard to work towards. There's plenty out there that will think "nah, can't be bothered to to that I'll do it later - days become weeks, etc... You know how it goes when you put something off, eh?

[gbduo]

Haha, but the same people who would pay a Fiesta to just hoon about probably don't worry about MOTs, tax or Insurance either! They are the more dangerous.

But yeh, I completely don't understand the thinking really. I heard it was optional to get an MOT and to be honest, I imagine most classic car owners would continue to get one for peace of mind, but I am just completely bemused why you would make it optional in the first place! As I say, its not like classic cars are causing queues in MOT stations! Very strange.

[gbduo]

http://www.classicsmonthly.com/2012/...1960-classics/

That is an editorial on the plans if anyone is interested. I happen to agree with the editor on this. The low number of accidents there might be from pre 1960s cars and as meticulous as most owners are, you only need one nob to ruin it for everyone.

[BackDoorEntry]

(Original post by JC.)
...

Fair points man, I think you may have convinced me this time lol!
It definitely takes one to ruin it for the rest

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by JC.)
You have to get the 150 quid fiesta through an MOT though, Graham!
A lot of classic car owners maintain there car because they have to because they've got a set standard to work towards. There's plenty out there that will think "nah, can't be bothered to to that I'll do it later - days become weeks, etc... You know how it goes when you put something off, eh?

Do you though? It only becomes a problem if you get pulled over. I don't even think ANPR cameras pull it up - my dad drove his Merc around for 5 months after the MOT expired (he thought it had 12 months test when he bought it, but it was only 5 or 6) and it was only when he went to check he realised. Plenty of motorway miles and a few trips into London for ANPR to pick it up.

I don't really feel strongly either way, but I'm not convinced the change will encourage dangerous cars onto the road. If you're wiling to drive an unroadworthy car, chances are you're willing to drive without an MOT.