Possible MOT testing changes ??

[terrytibbs]

Hi all
just found this on the internet today, would we like MOT exemption on vehicles over 30 years old?? you betcha!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/classic-mot/surve ... exemption/

[MarinaCoupe]

Sounds like a money saver for a long term owner, however as a buyer how would you know that what you are buying is safe for the road. Could a voluntary test be possible to give buyers confidence when buying?

[JoshWard]

I am both for and against it. It would save me a hell of a lot of cash however I know there are people out there who don't look after their cars as it is, I had a chat about it with my MOT tester the last time I was there and he said he regularly MOTs classics owned by people who treat them as normal cars and never think to regularly check or maintain them, the result is a dangerous car. On the other hand I think the current MOT test is largely irrelevant for any car over about 35 years old. Certainly an MOT test for one of my Marinas takes at most half an hour and very little in the current MOT test is relevant for an older vehicle. I think they should instead introduce a cheaper test for historic vehicles (I think it is unfair to pay the same amount for a half hour MOT including time to chat as a full 45 minute MOT on a modern car!) which tests the same basic things that are checked now- brakes, lights, tyres, steering, bodywork structure etc.

[balmy]

Already countries within the United Kingdom that don't have MOT tests and they don't have any inherent problems.
Mot is only relevant for a very short time. Yes I personally think it's good to have an annual check but it's a responsibility year round to make sure your vehicle is roadworthy.
A brakes, corrosion, steering/suspension check for older vehicles would we a good bet. Like Josh says, half the time and half the cost and it makes a good compromise.

[david painter]

The MOT test on todays classics, carries out a many testable items as were applicable to the car when it was first of testable age. With the addition of brake balance, across the rear axle and the number plate light, as both of these were not testable items when the cars were current. As a MOT Station owner I am horrified at the condition some of cars that are presented for test. I know the test, only relates to testable items at the time of the test, for that day only. It does however mean that they do meet the Minimum Safety Standard once a year. I have seen a car presented for test with a bungee cord holding the brake pedal back up and give it some resistance when pushed!!!! also the quality of some of the DIY work that has been carried out can be questionable to say the least. Im not saying classic owners look after there cars badly or anything like that, but £54.00 ( or less ) once a year ensures everyone car, is checked and safe at the time of test. But the person following you may be the one that has the bungee cord around the brake pedal!! and they wont be able to stop in an emergency. The cost of the test is hardly covers the cost of a meal out for two a small price to pay for having a minimum safety standard.
Dave

[JubileeNut]

I agree with David's comments above. I have a certain amount of pride when I take my car in for mot as I try to make sure it goes through without any problems, but if there is a problem found it is put right ASAP. My last mot on my old car failed as I pointed out what looks like a crack in the rear alloy wheel rim. It turned out I was correct and the car failed. Although it was a pain I would prefer it that way than a serious accident and lose of car.

[1972TCCOUPE]

I agree with points made above. There should be some kind of annual test, but for the first time I stayed with the mumford for the mot. It was interesting watching Phil the mot tester going round and round checking the same thing over and over again. We joked about it and spent a good 10 minutes together under the car on the ramp. He said the computer system wont let him do an mot in less than 45 minutes so he really was filling in time.
Maybe a two tier system,but where would you draw the line. It passed by the way with only a number plate bulb out.

[Morris McKinnon]

I think MOT exemption is a bad idea. I could take PTH out right now as she is if that was the case! Sounds great but with the amount of rot in her she would crumple like paper in a head on. Common sense tells most people to change a wheel bearing when it starts making a noise but with no MOT to worry about that job could be put off for maybe two or three years! Anyway, an MOT is not only piece of mind but it feels like an achievement when it passes

[balmy]

Sorry to point out. But no MOT wouldn't mean you could take a car out in any condition. It still has to be to a standard. Your mistaking a lack of test with lack of standard.
As pointed out-I can think of two uk countries that don't have MOT's but yet manage high standards of car safety. It's about changed responsibilities. Not standards.

[MGBV8]

When I think cars with no MOT tests, I immediately think of the wrecks that come over from Jersey and struggle to find buyers.
The moment you open up a system to abuse, that's exactly what you'll get. I don't care if you're the most fastidious person in the world, it doesn't hurt for someone else to check over your handiwork once a year.

Anyone ever been pulled up by the rozzers? Typically you'll get the older fatter one try and give you a life lesson whilst the wet behind the ears lacky checks your tyres tax disc and numberplates. Are they really going to nip under the car and spot the rusty spring hanger that's about to fail? Doubt it.
How many times have we all phoned up a car and asked the seller "what's it like underneath" and been given one of three answers:
A) it's fine mate - only to go down and to see the pile of scrap in question with holes in the sills big enough to put your fist through. or,
B) "The MOT man said it was OK".
C) I've no idea ("because I'm too old / lazy / indifferent / mechanically inept to look")

Granted, a 12 month ticket on a car doesn't really mean a lot, but at least it forces the dodgy individuals in society to go and get the thing assessed before you drive a death trap away and kill yourself or some other poor sod with it.

The purpose of laws are to keep the idiots and the dregs of society in check. Most of us can work out for ourselves that it's not a nice thing to go around mugging old ladies despite ample opportunities. Yet we have laws that punish those who can't find it within themselves to behave like decent human beings.
The same applies to cars: give the lazy and the feckless an inch and they'll take the piss with impunity.

[balmy]

Having an mot or not won't change whether a copper will notice rusty spring hangers
Nor will it change lazy/dishonest sellers.

[Morris McKinnon]

I agree balmy. Me and you and many others wouldn't think of driving a car in such a sorry state because we have standards but unfortunately not everyone has standards. I'm not saying the MOT couldn't be tweaked for older cars but to get rid of it all together? Not good.

[balmy]

As I said above. I believe we SHOULD have an MOT. But I also believe people should take more responsibility for there vehicles rather than just having work done cause it failed an MOT. How long was that tyre illegal for before the mot man failed it?

[Morris McKinnon]

As I said above. I believe we SHOULD have an MOT. But I also believe people should take more responsibility for there vehicles rather than just having work done cause it failed an MOT. How long was that tyre illegal for before the mot man failed it?

I just seen my comment. I didn't mean for it to sound like you agreed with MOT exemption
Anyway, you make a good point about the bald tyre. The car could have been driving with perished sidewalls for months until it fails the MOT then has to be changed but with no MOT chances are it would be on the car until it blows doing 70 on the M4 a week after it Should have had it's MOT! How many times have you've been caught out with a tyre that looks perfect on the outside but perished on the inner side? It's happened to me many times.

[JubileeNut]

I have seen many a car with faulty tyres parked in children bays in the supermarket car park. Yes I did leave a note to point out 2 tyres were about to blow please get them checked. Did they ? I have no idea!!
This is with an MOT to catch those who don't bother.
My mate had a car and let the tyres go through to the cord or webbing and he paid a small price of losing control and hitting the curb sideways taking out both wheels and disc brakes. Lucky for him it was not someone else or his life just a car, but it amazes me that people who are more than normal seem to make stupid mistakes.
I hate to say it but, even my brother has got in his car, used it, and then found it to have poor tread or worn out tyres. He is very well sorted in the intelligence department but not bothered about cars etc. He now gets it serviced by what ever garage is near and hands over cash when the bill hits the mat.

The point I am making is if the MOT is stopped then people of all walks will stop thinking about it.
In my small opinion people who think that way or are slack on safety when behind the wheel should not even have a licence to drive. If they can't decide if the car is safe then the option is there to give the car to a garage and put up with what ever they tell you is wrong. At least you may end up with a road worthy car if serviced every year plus MOT.

Normally if a car looks rough and has parts hanging off the rest is not going to be good either. Steer clear of those ones