|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Sept 15, 2017 11:05:53 GMT
After waiving the need for 60 year old cars to pass the anuual MoT test, propsals and consultations have taken place to reduce this to 40 years. All 'Crabs will thus become MoT exempt. I have very mixed feelings about this. Like many on here, I like to think I'm fairly handy at the maintenance side of things, but I'm not a professional and like the reassurance of having the car inspected. Then, of course, there will be a few incompetents or chancers who will abuse the system. Bear in mind that there are far more surviving 40 year old cars than 60 year old ones. Anyway, read all about it HERE. Chris. |
|
|
|
Post by snoopy11 on Sept 15, 2017 11:29:10 GMT
I'm not sure if mine will meet the modifications guidelines but it will still be having one every year.
It's a bloody STUPID idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Sept 15, 2017 12:34:57 GMT
If your car has a current MOT certificate then I believe that provides you with some independent professional proof of its structural integrity that could be used to challenge an insurance company or law enforcement officer who were minded otherwise. I would think many reponsible owners would wish to opt for the voluntary test, but maybe at the time of year that best suits them. However, a scaled down and cheaper check focusing on the key safety aspects would appear preferable. Interesting this appears to be in response to changes in EU directives that may no longer be applicable a year later.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by peppib on Sept 15, 2017 13:30:05 GMT
Mine has always had an MOT, but last year I found that sometimes things are missed, as Chris can verify, as it took him weeks to repair the sills and underside of my road legal car. It will still be checked every year
|
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Sept 15, 2017 22:54:40 GMT
Hi All
This is an interesting one. I live in Queensland where there is no annual check of vehicles. The requirements are for a road worthy only to sell a registered vehicle. The weather is good and we lack the salty roads of the uk which is a big factor in favour of the MOT. Having said that there are very few bombs on the road here surprisingly! I would say from the reaction on here already, most wouldn't want to drive a death trap, so you self regulate! A 40 year old car in the uk thats not a museum piece is getting looked after by someone. This person becomes very liable if the car crashes due to a roadworthy issue. Its a mad mechanic that dosen't let owners know of this kind of issue! Queensland do spot checks but this is rare. Even so it dosen't seem to be a problem here! Im for it I think given a similar set up.
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewa on Sept 16, 2017 10:28:55 GMT
I'll stick with an MOT - all this stuff was brought in for a good reason (like hard shoulders on Motorways - which are now deemed unnecessary!) I have few friends who relish/celebrate not having to MOT their old cars already, but they barely use them to be honest. It's all great until something goes horribly wrong though.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Sept 16, 2017 10:38:50 GMT
I agree with you. From what I have read about the yet to be finalised criteria for modified cars it would appear likely you won't have any choice but to continue with the annual MOT.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Sept 16, 2017 12:19:59 GMT
It will be interesting to see if this has any impact on the asking price for cars 40 years or over.
Thoughts?
David
|
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Sept 16, 2017 15:27:28 GMT
I'm obviously rowing against the tide here but I have no objection at all if the requirement for not having an MOT test on cars over 40 years old is brought in as it would suit me down to the ground. I look after all my cars correctly and don't skimp on servicing or maintenance and I am qualified to do so. If I want to purchase another car I am capable of inspecting it and deciding if it is ok or not so if it is old enough to be exempt form needing an MOT that's not a problem for me.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Sept 16, 2017 22:51:31 GMT
Interesting to see your comments guys. Like I said QLD don't require testing. This is not age related it includes all vehicles. I have to add that the cops over here are not silly and have the power to put you off the road pending a roadworthy. Also you can't transfer registration without same. Seems to work just fine here! People who don't maintain their vehicles tend to have a vehicle that stands out somewhat and attract the law like flies!
Mot as was when I was in the UK is no guarantee of a roadworthy vehicle! It even says that on the MOT from memory! Spend the money you save not having a test on you car, you wont miss the MOT!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewa on Sept 18, 2017 9:10:10 GMT
I've seen your Police on reality TV shows - you're right they do stop and question the roadworthiness of cars and so on. We used to have police that nothwithstanding an MOT would pull you over if they noticed anything suspect with you car or how you'd modified it - it's been decades over here since that sort of thing happened - at least in my neck of the woods.
I suppose the flip side is an MOT is no guarantee of anything - witness some of the motors on here - mine being a prime example - which whilst having a reasonably recent MOT when I bought it, should never have been on the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Sept 18, 2017 9:55:39 GMT
Certainly is an interesting subject. I had a look at a report from Monash Uni about the effects of roadworthy testing on safety. They had some interesting info in it. In one study it said your chances of surviving a crash even in a roadworthy vehicle 20+ years old are considerable worse just because new cars are so much better designed! It also said that a study which crash tested a rusty vehicle proved that the vehicle still performed well in the test. It did say that the vehicle did perform well when new, but suggested rusty dosen't necessarily suggest a death trap!
In general though what I got out of it was if you want to maximize your chances of surviving on the road you nead a new car! Most cars of the landcrab era perform poorly even if they are roadworthy in comparison to modern vehicles!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewa on Sept 18, 2017 12:03:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Sept 19, 2017 0:49:41 GMT
I'm a little surprised about the finding that vehicles that performed well when new were also good when rusty. My experience is that when even lightly rusted panels appear to lose much of their strength. It shouldn't be surprising that the addition of £000s of airbags, seatbelt tensioners and weight etc improve your chances. However, a cursory look at some Russian Youtube crashes show modern vehicles going completely and suddenly out of control in a way I do not recall happening with the Issigonis FWD cars of the 60s /70s. I still believe the crab had the most predictable and therefore safe handling of any vehicle I have ever owned or driven irrespective of cost. David Certainly is an interesting subject. I had a look at a report from Monash Uni about the effects of roadworthy testing on safety. They had some interesting info in it. It also said that a study which crash tested a rusty vehicle proved that the vehicle still performed well in the test. It did say that the vehicle did perform well when new, but suggested rusty dosen't necessarily suggest a death trap! Nick |
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Sept 19, 2017 3:08:39 GMT
Hi David
It also said that drivers tend to drive their cars appropriately with regard to condition and age. In other words they compensate for condition and age. I wonder if reliance on a new car being safe is perhaps effecting the way people drive them in a bad way for the same reason. Mind you the Russians are a bit mad in any case!
I agree with you about the Crab. I did some silly stuff in mine as a young bloke and it was always well behaved!
Just to clarify it didn't say all cars will necessarily perform well when rusty! Just the surprising result that some may stll perform well when rusty!
Nick
|
|
