Morris Minor Owners Club

Neil MG wrote:Well I think it's great!

It will help promote older cars and reduces a lot of red tape and a test that was less and less applicable.

As for the condition or road-worthiness of cars I see that it will make little difference. I host our branch mechanics days and I can say that whether a car has an MOT or not is absolutely no indication of it being safe. Most of the posts on this forum about brakes, lighting or suspension problems relate to cars that hold a current MOT!

Let's not forget that it is our legal obligation to make sure that our cars are roadworthy, regardless of MOT.

It will increase the value of older cars because the annual running cost has now been reduced by about £40 or more. It will also generate interest in older cars, which is good for all of us.

As for comments referring to not needing to fix cars properly that have been off the road, anyone driving such a car is very (more) likely to be stopped and prosecuted. It is no more legal to do that now than it was before, having (zero duty) tax and insurance does not mean you can legally drive an unsafe car.

I think there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to something that will in fact be of great benefit to owners of older cars. I can understand those people that have a post 1960 car (of the same design) being a bit miffed though. I have several classics and three will qualify, which is a good start!

chickenjohn wrote:I can understand no MOT for pre-war cars

very few of us are mechanics / trained MOT assessors.

exactly the point of the mot ,to help out not to persecute, and if owners feel obliged to have a voluntary examination,for peace of mind.Whats the point of changing,if you don't want the car on the road its sorn 'ed(which it still will have to be for insurance regs) or mot'd or in the future voluntary exam, Just wait until some wreck comes out of a field,rotten through with no brakes and wipes out a bus queue.Think you've got restrictions now on use of classics just wait and see what comes of this. And being x plod, and knowing how the quota system works,If I was a young bucko back in the job, and knew that pre 60 cars needed no mot I would be pulling every one I saw and checking everything from steering to numberplate light,and I bet I would find enough con and use reg faults to satisfy my sergeant and keep him off my back
kennatt
Minor Addict

Another very good point. I've emailed my thoughts elsewhere but whether they'll appear in print I don't know.
I think a voluntary yearly MOT level test with advisories on 'what needs doing / should be done in the near future' would be a very good idea and if we keep any receipts / invoices, they could prove good ammunition should we have to defend our hobby and it's usage against some future government legislation.
It would also prove that any future unmaintained classic related fatalities were down to the actions of the individual, not the attitude of the whole classic car (bus / lorry) movement.
Mike.

jagnut66 wrote:

very few of us are mechanics / trained MOT assessors.
Another very good point. I've emailed my thoughts elsewhere but whether they'll appear in print I don't know.
I think a voluntary yearly MOT level test with advisories on 'what needs doing / should be done in the near future' would be a very good idea and if we keep any receipts / invoices, they could prove good ammunition should we have to defend our hobby and it's usage against some future government legislation.
It would also prove that any future unmaintained classic related fatalities were down to the actions of the individual, not the attitude of the whole classic car (bus / lorry) movement.
Mike.

That is exactly what we now have for pre 1960 cars! A voluntary MOT test.

It seems that most concern is that it will be "other people" who will now be irresponsible due to this change. I don't see any reason why that should be the case. A compulsory test that has less and less relevance to older cars is no longer required. This is good news for owners and good news for the industry.

Any time a police officer wants to stop me and check my car he is most welcome. I think there should be more of that. Unfortunately it is not cost effective and difficult to regulate, but it would do a lot more to prevent defective cars being used than the MOT test.

In fact I would go so far as to say the MOT has a negative effect on vehicle safety when it comes to older cars, especially the Morris Minor. It is all too common for people to hide behind the fact that their car has an MOT while knowingly driving with defective brakes or steering. This is something I see all the time from the mechanics days and technical pages of this forum!

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that most of the negative comments come from owners of post 1960 cars! Not that I am suggesting sour grapes.....

I hope all the pro MOT folks wont be dissapointed in years to come when an imbecile in Brussels decrees something like you can't fit a different engine in a vehicle without all sorts of red tape and the MOT picks up that your split screen has a 948 so after your MOT you get a letter asking for an engineers report, where did you purchase the engine? was it from a registered authorised vehicle dismantler? Oh you bought the engine at an auto jumble or from this forum and not an authorised place so sorry you can not use the car on the road as it is an environmental disaster area.

charlie_morris_minor wrote: i for one would have preferred they had reintroduced rolling tax exemption to allow some more modern cars to be covered.

Neil MG wrote:

chrisd87 wrote:I'm of two minds on this one really. On the one hand, I'm not much of a fan of regulations, &c., and to be honest the safety aspect doesn't really bother me. However, I already have visions of the baying mob demanding that "something must be done" after a brakeless A30 runs into a bus queue.

But what is stopping the brakeless A30 running into the bus queue with an MOT? Driving with no brakes is illegal regardless of this new ruling.

I think that any sensible person will continue to check or have their vehicle checked. The less sensible are a risk to themselves and others regardless of this ruling. Does anyone really think that this will lead to a significant increase of illegal classic car drivers?

I had to show where my replacement engine came from and was perfectly happy to do so. I also had to have a letter to say it had been installed to a roadworthy standard.

ah well, didn't take long did it:

would YOU buy a car from this man?!!!

I had a look at this link
I think it makes my point for me, all it needs now is a buyer with the wrong attitude...............

chrisd87 wrote:Que? The point was more about the hypothetical case of a car with defective brakes causing an accident, not a comment on their original efficacy!

I had to show where my replacement engine came from and was perfectly happy to do so. I also had to have a letter to say it had been installed to a roadworthy standard.

I'm a bit worried by this. Did the DVLA say what evidence they were after for the source of the engine? If it's just a receipt, that's no problem as you can easily knock up a fake one in a few minutes. If they want to see the logbook of the car it came out of, that's a bit harder as I suspect the cars my (privately purchased) spare engines came out of were scrapped donkey's years ago. Also interesting that they wanted a bit of paper to say it had been installed to a 'roadworthy standard'. Never heard of that one before. Personally I would resent having pay a garage to give me a piece of paper to 'prove' to some bureaucrat that I can indeed tighten bolts correctly.