|
|
Aug 12, 2014 21:57:42 GMT
|
oh my.... the " 2 year MOT" scared me enough. But having more cars that will never EVER have to go through an MOT? Count me out Agreed muchly I want some sort of official proof I'm not going fall through the floor pan a day after I buy something I'de prefer to stick my head underneath and have a good poke at a new purchase, rather than rely on a piece of paper, i'm sure most people have at some point bought at least one vehicle with an MOT by Stevie Wonder. I think the main problem is that with the current system a lot of people don't bother doing any maintenence until a car fails its MOT....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2014 23:41:12 GMT
|
You're right dodgerover, but the test is either a) a good backup check after you've performed all maintenance/work on your car or b) an indicator of the work that needs doing to people who don't check their car's condition regularly. Either way, I think it should stay and it's nice to see people talking sense rather than giving it 'no test! We can get away with murder now!' Type none sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 10:02:44 GMT
|
I'm not in favour of MoT testing exemption classes - it neatly allows the ptb to begin to impose restrictions of use, due to emissions, safety and so on. I suppose the same could be said for tax exemption for older cars too, but at some point someone with a test-exempt car will cause an accident due to a car not being in a fit state. Once the media get hold of a story like that, life could quite quickly become difficult for the 99.9% who do bother to maintain and use their old cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 10:58:28 GMT
|
I'm dead against it. I have no problem with getting my cars MOT'd and as someone who drives 30k miles a year I want to know I am safe on the roads from people who don't maintain their cars.
Furthermore, I'd imagine this separate regulation for older cars is just Europe setting things up nicely for a mileage limit/usage limit to be put in place on old 'polluting' cars in the long term.
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 13, 2014 10:58:56 GMT by brettsri
87 Mk2 Cavalier SRi Turbo
89 Mk3 Cavalier SRi V6
90 Cartlon GSi3000 24v (Lotus Rep)
90 Senator CD 24v
99 Omega 3.0 MV6
|
|
ferny
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 984
Club RR Member Number: 13
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 11:08:04 GMT
|
I'm not sure a crash with an MOT car will fill the headlines. Most crashes are with a car with one after all... What worries me more is the lack of someone who knows what they're doing looking at the car. We all make mistake anyway, but how often do you speak to someone about cars and wonder how they even manage to put their shoes on the correct feet each morning? People out there buy cars with no interest as to how to maintain or repair them, they just want to buy one and it's no different for classics. No maintenance is just as bad as poor but at least at the moment someone checks their work over once a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 12:31:58 GMT
|
Furthermore, I'd imagine this separate regulation for older cars is just Europe setting things up nicely for a mileage limit/usage limit to be put in place on old 'polluting' cars in the long term. That's one reason why the (potential) no-MOT thingy makes no sense to me as I thought that checking the emissions of any road-going vehicle is high on the check list of 'must please the EU' rules we have to follow at the moment...?! Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that this won't happen as I'd like to think that common sense will prevail and this whole thing will be laughed off!!! Then again...
|
|
***GARAGE CURRENTLY EMPTY***
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 15:09:40 GMT
|
tbh, the classic car bunch (ie: us) are relatively few, and quiet, in comparison to "green" nutjobs. They would happily spend weeks on end campaigning for their opinions to be heard (regardless of how idiotic they may sometimes be) whilst we as a whole, will mainly just sign an online petition... maybe
|
|
You're like a crazy backyard genius!
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 19:22:50 GMT
|
tbh, the classic car bunch (ie: us) are relatively few, and quiet, The problem is "the classic car bunch" are actually not all one homogeneous group. There's the modified old car/hot rod/ custom car camp (i.e Retro Rides users) at one end and the concours showroom perfect condition camp at the other- many of whom hate modifications of any sort and wouldn't give a monkey's if any legislation compromised our rights to modify classic/older cars. The concours type owners generally don't drive their cars much either. And in between the two opposite ends of the scale are the people who enjoy owning a classic but not obsessive about it. The bread and butter of the classic scene if you will.
Think of it like the British class system.
And to the original question, I can't think of any good reasons to change what we've got now.
|
|
|
|
froggy
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,099
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 21:37:42 GMT
|
since the mot exemption came in i havent seen one come in even though i told them they could come and get a mini mot with a quick check over on the ramp and brake test .to be fair the rods and classics that used to come where all pretty tidy motors
|
|
|
|
adam73bgt
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,866
Club RR Member Number: 58
|
|
|
For me the problem with doing this is that there are many pre '85 cars that anyone could buy cheaply and use relatively comfortably on a daily basis. When the pre '60 exemption came in, there weren't many cars I could think of that you could buy cheaply enough and want to run everyday unless you're a proper enthusiast It would probably see the number of 'barn finds' drop as people would just bung a couple new tyres on, give it a polish and sell it as a good runner..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 13:25:04 GMT
|
In my 30 year career in the Fire Service, I can't recall any motoring incident that I attended being the result of vehicle condition. Usually it was carelessness, drunkenness, lack of ability, road conditions etc that led to the situation. However, the physical condition of the vehicle did result in varying outcomes for the occupants. I think that an MOT for all (adjusted to reflect age of vehicle) irrespective of modifications should suffice.
PO
|
|
|
|