For those interested in old cars.

[alastairq]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Same as a regular service... But many drivers don't bother with them either... At least the requirement for an MoT forces people to do something, unlike the manufacturer telling the owner that the car should be serviced every so often which can be, and often is, ignored. That's one reason as a classic car owner i was against getting rid of the requirement to have an MoT. You can say what you like, Alastair, but I'd rather we still have MoTs than not, there are too many cars already out there that are not looked after correctly as it is, at least having an annual test means that some are caught, or at least would be more easily caught if there were more people policing the roads... I dread to think of the carnage if we got rid of it, look back to the statistics for the 50s when there was no MoT, and fewer cars and think what it would be like if we had a similar free for all now...

 I'm not denying the MoT test has a place...but it is given a status far beyond its abilities.

It is very easy for a vehicle to pass an MoT...even if very nearly worn out!

How many people on here...instead of examining their own vehicles, & rectifying all or any faults found , simply leave it to the MoT tester to identify what needs to be attended to at that point in time?

Then only fix what has been identified? Nothing more?

What about one month before the test?  Is it acceptable to leave any fault rectification for that extra month until MoT time?

 

As for placing roadworthiness of a vehicle as a major and worrying future source of collisions? Why not look to the Government's published facts on the matter?

The statistics show that a very low percentage of all road traffic incidents are directly caused by a vehicle's lack of roadworthiness.

 

As for enforcement?

That does vary throughout the country...where I live there are frequent Police/DVSA roadside vehicle [and driver] checks......with a large proportion of LGVs being reported for insecure loads. I don't see any real complaints about whether that curtainsider one is following, actually has its load secured properly inside?

 

 

 

[steve1]

Spotted in a Howden car park today, an immaculate Hillman Avenger 1500 in gold. Not a mark on it inside (as far as I could see) or out. Wish I had a camera with me.

 

My first car was an Avenger 1250 HL and my 4th car was a 1500, incidentally also gold but with the snazzy (!) black vinyl roof. Both were 4 doors. Would love a Tiger or a rally-prepped 2 door!

 

steve

[Joseph_Pestell]

25 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 I'm not denying the MoT test has a place...but it is given a status far beyond its abilities.

It is very easy for a vehicle to pass an MoT...even if very nearly worn out!

How many people on here...instead of examining their own vehicles, & rectifying all or any faults found , simply leave it to the MoT tester to identify what needs to be attended to at that point in time?

Then only fix what has been identified? Nothing more?

What about one month before the test?  Is it acceptable to leave any fault rectification for that extra month until MoT time?

 

As for placing roadworthiness of a vehicle as a major and worrying future source of collisions? Why not look to the Government's published facts on the matter?

The statistics show that a very low percentage of all road traffic incidents are directly caused by a vehicle's lack of roadworthiness.

 

As for enforcement?

That does vary throughout the country...where I live there are frequent Police/DVSA roadside vehicle [and driver] checks......with a large proportion of LGVs being reported for insecure loads. I don't see any real complaints about whether that curtainsider one is following, actually has its load secured properly inside?

 

 

 

 

I have had no confidence at all in the MOT test since the subframe fell out of a car two days after it had passed its MOT.

[peanuts]

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

 I'm not denying the MoT test has a place...but it is given a status far beyond its abilities.

It is very easy for a vehicle to pass an MoT...even if very nearly worn out!

How many people on here...instead of examining their own vehicles, & rectifying all or any faults found , simply leave it to the MoT tester to identify what needs to be attended to at that point in time?

Then only fix what has been identified? Nothing more?

What about one month before the test?  Is it acceptable to leave any fault rectification for that extra month until MoT time?

 

As for placing roadworthiness of a vehicle as a major and worrying future source of collisions? Why not look to the Government's published facts on the matter?

The statistics show that a very low percentage of all road traffic incidents are directly caused by a vehicle's lack of roadworthiness.

 

As for enforcement?

That does vary throughout the country...where I live there are frequent Police/DVSA roadside vehicle [and driver] checks......with a large proportion of LGVs being reported for insecure loads. I don't see any real complaints about whether that curtainsider one is following, actually has its load secured properly inside?

 

 

 

the insecure load thing is the latest DVSA cause celeb it is being pushed heavily at cpc etc tho this has tailed off some of late they are now pushing axle loadings and overall weight of loads targeting vans under 7.5t judging from several dvsa/police twitter feeds they are having alot of success  

[Hobby]

OK, for those of you saying that the MoT is worthless (I know some of you may challenge that statement, but that's the way you are coming across!) what would be your alternative, bearing in mind there are 40/50 million vehicles on UK roads and policing is patchy, at best... What is your wonderful way of keeping cars safe in the current climate without spending lots of money that the Government don't have?

 

 

(It's easy to criticise but if you do you should expect to be challenged and have an alternative that will do the same job (but better, obviously!), otherwise your comments are worthless. In today's world of easy criticism (using FB, Twitter and Forums like this one) people are happy knocking things but I feel that we do not challenge these views enough, shut up or put up!)

[TheQ]

14 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I have had no confidence at all in the MOT test since the subframe fell out of a car two days after it had passed its MOT.

old mini / austin 1100?

[Kingzance]

Well said Hobby! It is today too easy for us all to expound our views and expect that others will agree with them. It is also true that society is expecting even more taxation to be raised from fewer and fewer taxpayers to be redirected to a never reducing list of causes “deserving” of help. More worryingly is the lack of accountability those promoting their own ideologies face. 

Too many laws are passed without proper consideration of the impact and effect of such legislation. A key issue should be is how any law will be enforced but this seems never to be considered. Successive governments want to judge their legacy by how much they increase the statute book.

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

45 minutes ago, TheQ said:

old mini / austin 1100?

Triumph 1300

[alastairq]

Nobody [least of all me] is suggesting a 'replacement' for the MoT.

Far from it.

 

The point I am making is, there seems to be  far too much emphasis on the credibility of the test.....and not enough acceptance of its limitations.

 

Having possession of a current MoT means nothing, in regard to the actual [legal] roadworthiness of a vehicle....[which, as said before, even insurance companies acknowledge]

 

But far too many folk seem to place the MoT on a pedestal.

 

Regarding vehicles over 40 years old, and MoT?

 

The sheer lack of numbers [when compared to vehicles on the road, registered this century, for example].....mean roadworthiness is easier to enforce....There really isn't any more likelihood of drivers of pre-40 year old vehicles ignoring the regulations and just driving out in what amounts to a wreck  [and probably, far less, perhaps?]...than there is of drivers doing likewise with vehicles made this century.

 

The need for a valid MoT is today ignored probably just as much as not bothering with insurance, or having a valid driving licence. 

 

The owner[driver] of a pre-40 year old vehicle is likely to be some sort of enthusiast for the job...therefore far more likely to do something to ensure their vehicle is at least roadworthy [ in as much as, the state of the vehicle structurally and mechanically poses no threat to the wellbeing of other road users.]

 

The upside is...at least the DVSA don't have to concern themselves about maintaining increasingly more vast databases of details of vehicles going back to the year dot......[thus saving the public purse some money?]....for the test....allowing the system to focus more on the vast [by far] majority of more modern vehicles which really do need testing.

 

I note there has been little outcry concerning the lack of testing for vehicles younger than 3 years old? [Equally likely to be unroadworthy...especially considering the increases in mileage travelled each year?]...Or, aren't tyres, brakes, joints, etc likely to have become excessively worn in that time?  [Ask Audi about their issues with their aluminium chassis, for example? Or their past issues with steering on nearly new cars?]

 

Just because someone can drive a vehicle on the road without needing a current MoT [which lasts all of 12 months.....thus with an 11 month old MoT...does that make the vehicle any safer?]....doesn't mean they will do so without ensuring the vehicle is roadworthy.  

 

 

 

[Hobby]

So no alternative then... Thought not...

[PhilJ W]

The MoT test has evolved with the vehicles to be tested. When it was introduced 60 years ago there was no requirement for seat belts or exhaust emissions testing and certainly no computers in cars. Presenting a 60 year old car for a test today would probably leave the examiner scratching his (or her) head. Many a modern day test station would be incapable of testing a vehicle over 40 years old. The only answer would be an exemption as applied or test stations set up to test older vehicles. To set up such test stations would be expensive and such a service would be patchy, OK if you lived in a town or city but those in more remote areas could find themselves many miles from the nearest test centre. 

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

So no alternative then... Thought not...

Who wants an alternative?

 

I could suggest the alternative be the German [or Japanese?] system, to apply to all cars under 40 years of age? That should remove  from the roads pretty much everything pre-10 years old?

But I have never implied we need an ''alternative''..that is a perception acquired by others!

What I do object to, is the belief by many that possession of a current MoT test ticket is  the be-all & end-all of road worthiness [it isn't , by a long chalk]...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644412/government-response-to-exempting-vehicles-of-historical-interest-from-roadworthiness.pdf

Above explains essentially why there is no need for a compulsory annual MoT test for vehicles over 40 years old.

[PatB]

As I've said before, I live in a jurisdiction where there is no mandatory periodic testing of private vehicles or light, non-passenger carrying commercials (can't remember where testing cuts in but it might be 4.5T GVW), and the result is neither carnage nor a free for all. Obvious wrecks are really quite unusual. Funnily enough, a lot of the serious roadworthiness hazards I see are on older heavy trucks, which are subject to inspections.

 

Now, I would be the first to admit that Western Australia and the UK have some significant differences. We don't have the same corrosion problems, for example, either structural or on mechanical components like brakes. We also don't have the overall traffic density, although Perth itself is as busy as any major city in the world. OTOH, the heat can play havoc with tyres, and it still gets dark at night, so lighting faults are just as dangerous as anywhere.

 

But, overall, it works and, as I've also noted before, there is no significant difference between our roadworthiness related crash numbers and those of other States which do have annual inspections. So, although I wouldn't say that the MoT is worthless, given the rather harsher road environment in the UK, but I don't think it is necessarily making as much difference as you might expect.

[petethemole]

The MOT test was introduced in 1960 under Ernest Marples (what a surprise). I was 11-12 at the time and I remember people saying at the time  that the main aim was to get old cars of the road to boost the British motor industry.

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The MoT test has evolved with the vehicles to be tested. When it was introduced 60 years ago there was no requirement for seat belts or exhaust emissions testing and certainly no computers in cars. Presenting a 60 year old car for a test today would probably leave the examiner scratching his (or her) head. Many a modern day test station would be incapable of testing a vehicle over 40 years old. The only answer would be an exemption as applied or test stations set up to test older vehicles. To set up such test stations would be expensive and such a service would be patchy, OK if you lived in a town or city but those in more remote areas could find themselves many miles from the nearest test centre. 

 

Not a new problem. In the mid 70s a friend of mine was given a 1940s Alvis. The local MoT station had no idea what to do with cable-operated brakes.

[MinZaPint]

Went to the Museum at Gaydon and was very impressed, this little beauty took my eye

 

[PhilJ W]

9 hours ago, petethemole said:

The MOT test was introduced in 1960 under Ernest Marples (what a surprise). I was 11-12 at the time and I remember people saying at the time  that the main aim was to get old cars of the road to boost the British motor industry.

I seem to remember there being a fatal accident involving an old car that was the catalyst for the introduction of the MOT test. IIRC the brakes failed and the vehicle ran away down a steep hill and two children in the vehicle were killed.

[Fat Controller]

7 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Not a new problem. In the mid 70s a friend of mine was given a 1940s Alvis. The local MoT station had no idea what to do with cable-operated brakes.

We had a similar experience when running an Austin A40 Somerset; my wife had to explain that the floor was purely decorative, structural integrity depending on the chassis.

[Northmoor]

20 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I seem to remember there being a fatal accident involving an old car that was the catalyst for the introduction of the MOT test. IIRC the brakes failed and the vehicle ran away down a steep hill and two children in the vehicle were killed.

RMWebbers may remember in the mid-90s there was a fatal accident when a cement lorry with defective brakes (i.e. no linings left) ran away in Sowerby Bridge and crashed into a shop.  

The government solution was to introduce speed limiters for HGVs.

[peanuts]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

RMWebbers may remember in the mid-90s there was a fatal accident when a cement lorry with defective brakes (i.e. no linings left) ran away in Sowerby Bridge and crashed into a shop.  

The government solution was to introduce speed limiters for HGVs.

close but not quite the speed limiters are an EU directive to do with emitions consumption and competition  the outcome from the Sowerby bridge and a a similar indecent at Hayfield was the introduction of the periodic safety test for  all commercial vehicles over 3.5t .this is a six to nine weekly interval check of the road worthiness of each and every vehicle over 3.5t  by an independant vehicle examiner  of brakes steering suspension lights markers etc . operator of the vehicle must have a written contract with a HGV maintainance company to provide this facility before an operating licence to run the vehicle will be granted .repeated failures to maintain vehicles will result in loss suspension or curtailment of said operating licence it is a big stick used  alot to keep haulage company big and small in line . due to this regime being in place it is an absolute no no for any HGV to   fail its MOT if that happens questions are be asked of the fleet manager .

Edited June 21, 2019 by peanuts

[alastairq]

Also meant the compulsory introduction of a written fault reporting system for the drivers....which had to show a follow-up by the firm's fitters. Companies would be inspected with no prior notice,and would have to produce fault cards for a given vehicle, on a given date.....regardless of whether faults were reported, or not. FAilure to do so could result in the sanctions peanuts mentions...

It was all about providing a 'trail of evidence'...regarding maintenance...

[Northmoor]

31 minutes ago, peanuts said:

close but not quite the speed limiters are an EU directive to do with emitions consumption and competition  the outcome from the Sowerby bridge and a a similar indecent at Hayfield was the introduction of the periodic safety test for  all commercial vehicles over 3.5t .this is a six to nine weekly interval check of the road worthiness of each and every vehicle over 3.5t  by an independant vehicle examiner  of brakes steering suspension lights markers etc . operator of the vehicle must have a written contract with a HGV maintainance company to provide this facility before an operating licence to run the vehicle will be granted .repeated failures to maintain vehicles will result in loss suspension or curtailment of said operating licence it is a big stick used  alot to keep haulage company big and small in line . due to this regime being in place it is an absolute no no for any HGV to   fail its MOT if that happens questions are be asked of the fleet manager .

Thanks for the clarification, I'd obviously remembered the period wrong, although I certainly remember politicians saying how the incident would be less likely in future because of speed limiters (when clearly, they were irrelevant).  I did know being a HGV operator isn't for the faint-hearted and you've just explained why....

[peanuts]

42 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Also meant the compulsory introduction of a written fault reporting system for the drivers....which had to show a follow-up by the firm's fitters. Companies would be inspected with no prior notice,and would have to produce fault cards for a given vehicle, on a given date.....regardless of whether faults were reported, or not. FAilure to do so could result in the sanctions peanuts mentions...

It was all about providing a 'trail of evidence'...regarding maintenance...

add to this the continuous recording of drivers hours via the digital tachograph hgv operating and driving must be one of the tightest regulated industries in this country  

[Porkscratching]

HGVs bah!...They should've been sensible and left all this freight haulage stuff to the Railway...

[steve1]

On 20/06/2019 at 16:27, MinZaPint said:

Went to the Museum at Gaydon and was very impressed, this little beauty took my eye

 

 

My my. An old car in a thread about old cars. How unusual...

 

steve