Turboman
Mab An Gov
No idea, pre 1960 may have limited practicality for some business use anyway.
I dont do cheap insurance either, for exactly that reason!
Some companies seem to struggle to get their heads round business usage of older vehicles.
No idea, pre 1960 may have limited practicality for some business use anyway.
I dont do cheap insurance either, for exactly that reason!
Some companies seem to struggle to get their heads round business usage of older vehicles.
blue beasty
Leaks an prone to bits dropping off
No idea, pre 1960 may have limited practicality for some business use anyway.
I dont do cheap insurance either, for exactly that reason!
The limited practicality would change drastically if it moves from 60 to 86.
I'm not keen on the idea of loads of untested vehicles on the road. The previous 60 bit never made much sense to me anyway
HECKFLOSSE
Active Member
A friend of ours has a WW2 howitzer and tows it with a WW2 lorry. Both pre 60 obviously..
The lorry is MOT exempt, the gun is classed as a trailer and is tested.
Pretty crazy really.
Surely, if it goes on a public road, it needs testing. If not by MOT, at least by a recognised internal maintenance regime (like the Police for example).
Last edited:
blue beasty
Leaks an prone to bits dropping off
I'd certainly like to think so but I'm not sure what restrictions are on mot exempt use.
If the brakes fail it doesn't make a lot of difference if it was on its way to a show or going to work.
Is this going to be imposed even if the UK Gov doesn't want it?
What does it actually mean for those of us with vehicles over or approaching 30 years old?
blue beasty
Leaks an prone to bits dropping off
Reading through the synopsis of directive 2014/45/EU the majority is about ensuring a minimum standard of roadworthy testing across the EU.
It has this to say about historic vehicles....
Vehicles of historical interest are supposed to conserve the heritage of the period during which they were constructed, and are considered to be hardly used on public roads. Directive 2014/45/EU on periodic vehicle inspections states that it should be left to Member States to determine the periodicity of roadworthiness testing for such vehicles. It should also be for Member States to regulate roadworthiness testing for other types of specialised vehicles.
It seems to say roadworthiness testing for historic vehicles is a matter for individual States and I can't see anything about a 30 year exemption.
I might be looking in the wrong place but some facts would be good as to how this will or won't effect owners of older LRs.
chris7
Well-Known Member
I meticulously check ALL my historic and Classic cars regularly....
To date ive not had an Mot failure or one with advice notes for many years....
I'm a self confessed Classic car nut....
If every motorist had that same attitude ID be happy for the mot exemption...but
There are inevitably some who don't so I'm in favour of....
Mots for ALL....
To date ive not had an Mot failure or one with advice notes for many years....
I'm a self confessed Classic car nut....
If every motorist had that same attitude ID be happy for the mot exemption...but
There are inevitably some who don't so I'm in favour of....
Mots for ALL....
blue beasty
Leaks an prone to bits dropping off
This from the DOT website...
Under current GB and EU law cars and vans that were manufactured before 1960 can be exempt from MOT testing. A new EU directive allows us to continue to allow exemptions from MOT testing, but now for vehicles over 30 years old providing they have not been substantially changed.
We have to amend GB law to reflect the EU requirements if we wish to continue to exempt classic vehicles, but we have a lot of flexibility about how we do this.
In GB we can decide if we want to exempt cars and vans of “historic interest”, but only if they ‘have not been subject to substantial change’. Or we could choose to introduce biennial testing for such vehicles without having to consider “substantial change”. If we do exempt cars and vans, we can decide how old they should be before they’re exempted from testing and how to define ‘substantial change’
Sounds as though the if and how is up to our Gov though I still don't see why anything should be exempt but should have to pass a test as regulations were when it was manufactured....like it is now.
The rest of the directive is mostly min requirements for testing which we already exceed.
Under current GB and EU law cars and vans that were manufactured before 1960 can be exempt from MOT testing. A new EU directive allows us to continue to allow exemptions from MOT testing, but now for vehicles over 30 years old providing they have not been substantially changed.
We have to amend GB law to reflect the EU requirements if we wish to continue to exempt classic vehicles, but we have a lot of flexibility about how we do this.
In GB we can decide if we want to exempt cars and vans of “historic interest”, but only if they ‘have not been subject to substantial change’. Or we could choose to introduce biennial testing for such vehicles without having to consider “substantial change”. If we do exempt cars and vans, we can decide how old they should be before they’re exempted from testing and how to define ‘substantial change’
Sounds as though the if and how is up to our Gov though I still don't see why anything should be exempt but should have to pass a test as regulations were when it was manufactured....like it is now.
The rest of the directive is mostly min requirements for testing which we already exceed.
MeatCleaverX86
Active Member
I Would sooner a regular MOT and qualified inspector check my car over once a year compared to a jumped up jobs worth / police officer pulling me over for a road side test etc.
HECKFLOSSE
Active Member
"Substantial change "is the worrying bit.
I'm also into Hotrods and messing with old cars in general. This sort of EU directive is not good news if you want to drive, say, a Ford Pop with a v8 in it, or even a Series Landrover fitted with a modern engine and on coils, or even if you fit a different body to original.Special test for you , Sonny.
Biennial testing is foolish, but it might be a way out. The net is closing on those who like old vehicles to use rather than polish.
Of course, the best way out is on 23rd June..
Discokids
Well-Known Member
It will be great, save the cost of 2 take-away meals a year. Until somebody is killed in an accident involving a 30+ year old car with no mot. Then we'll all be irresponsible scum or Whatever. I'm sure the insurance companies will have something to say aswell, when a non- MOTed car is in a collision with their clients flashy new motor. It sounds a bit like driving on the autobahn - you can go as fast as you like but if you crash you're on your own.
I love working on my vehicles and take pride in their upkeep and care, but I'm not qualified to check them over and while its a pain in the ass when your disco fails on a rusty floor im sure it's an even bigger pain if the seat falls through the floor with somebody sat in it.
I love working on my vehicles and take pride in their upkeep and care, but I'm not qualified to check them over and while its a pain in the ass when your disco fails on a rusty floor im sure it's an even bigger pain if the seat falls through the floor with somebody sat in it.
SpringDon
Well-Known Member
I like getting them tested as well, if only the hear the tester say "you've made a really good job of that".
(This hasn't actually happened yet but is only a matter of time)
landrover11019
Active Member
Is the current MOT test really any good though?
Loads of things the tester cannot test/check, my understanding is testers cannot even test rear seatbelts if a child seat is fitted?
What I would like to see is that advisory items must be fixed within a certain time.
Loads of things the tester cannot test/check, my understanding is testers cannot even test rear seatbelts if a child seat is fitted?
What I would like to see is that advisory items must be fixed within a certain time.
tacr2man
Well-Known Member
What I found to be quite a good system is what they have in Western Australia , if Police stop a car for say a light out or loud exhaust etc , they can issue a "yellow sticker" which gets affixed to front windscreen , can only be removed by Test Centre or Police . The vehicle has to go and have a roadworthy inspection (MOT) and can only go on road when rectified , a report is sent to police when passed by test centre .
Some other EU countries are very restrictive on "classic (Oldtimer) vehicle" usage , and vehicle mod limits
Some other EU countries are very restrictive on "classic (Oldtimer) vehicle" usage , and vehicle mod limits
Turboman
Mab An Gov
Mine usually says " you have changed everything under this, havent you?" And I say " Yes, about five years ago."
And he will wiggle a few bits, and go over a few bits of chassis with the little hammer. Then he does the emissions and runs the steering around on a little turntable thingy. We check all the lights and stuff. Thats about it.
Discokids
Well-Known Member
I've always taken my child seats out. You saying I've been wasting my time? Between a responsible owner and an annual MOT nothing should slip through the net though should it? What they don't test should be picked up by the driver, if he/she understands their vehicle and maintains it correctly. Take one of those out of the equation and accidents are going to happen.
Between a responsible owner and an annual MOT nothing should slip through the net though should it? What they don't test should be picked up by the driver, if he/she understands their vehicle and maintains it correctly. Take one of those out of the equation and accidents are going to happen.
markomate2
Well-Known Member
I Like the Australian system as well.
In Estonia we have our cars tested every two years.
The test centres have no means to repair cars, they are only Govt run test centres.
They are quite pragmatic with their testing, our Mazda was done a couple of months ago, number plate light had failed, the tester just said, try to fit a new one as soon as you can, passed, and that was that.
I certainly agree that the UK annual test is a good thing, even through there are some dodgy testers out there.
But I will also say that this sounds like another (incorrect) story about EU imposing regs on the UK.
So called "Brussels red tape" very often comes from UK derived regulations.
I was at a meeting in December discussing how the UK would be trying to roll out a (UK created test system for instrumentation) regulation over the whole of the EU.
Representatives from other EU Countries were not impressed about "more UK regulations"!
Mark
In Estonia we have our cars tested every two years.
The test centres have no means to repair cars, they are only Govt run test centres.
They are quite pragmatic with their testing, our Mazda was done a couple of months ago, number plate light had failed, the tester just said, try to fit a new one as soon as you can, passed, and that was that.
I certainly agree that the UK annual test is a good thing, even through there are some dodgy testers out there.
But I will also say that this sounds like another (incorrect) story about EU imposing regs on the UK.
So called "Brussels red tape" very often comes from UK derived regulations.
I was at a meeting in December discussing how the UK would be trying to roll out a (UK created test system for instrumentation) regulation over the whole of the EU.
Representatives from other EU Countries were not impressed about "more UK regulations"!
Mark
norseman
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
