Practically Classics Forum

A thought about how technology might help here. I don't think the MOT should be stopped. Particularly after a resto, it's good to have your car checked over thoroughly by someone else knowledgeable and competent. But whilst keeping it compulsory to have the vehicle checked every year, I'd like to see a change, allowing the vehicle to be used after a 'fail' notice depending on the severity of the fail, ie take the issue of 'it's failed so can't be on the road' away eg, I had a car fail on inadequate screen washers; drove to Halfords car park fitted a one way valve, cleaned out the filter and it was fine; had to wait a week with it off the road before it could be retested and passed.

By allowing use after a minor fail you can keep using the car, get it fixed and rechecked for a pass. Technology can help on the DVLA website. We can already do a check for Tax status, so why not add MOT status, so when you come to buy a car, you know if it's passed, failed on a minor issue, or major one and the date of the fail/pass. If they were being really helpful they could give you the fail code for you to check it for yourself.

Anthony

ajsphead wrote:We can already do a check for Tax status, so why not add MOT status, so when you come to buy a car, you know if it's passed, failed on a minor issue, or major one and the date of the fail/pass.

You can already do this:

http://motinfo.direct.gov.uk/internet/j ... equest.jsp

You do need the last MoT cert. number or the V5C number though, but if I was buying from someone not willing to let me have at least one of these numbers I'd walk away.

I did this on the Volvo I recently bought, the MoT history tallied with what the vendor had told me verbally, so I bought it.

ajsphead wrote: I'd like to see a change, allowing the vehicle to be used after a 'fail' notice depending on the severity of the fail, ie take the issue of 'it's failed so can't be on the road' away eg, I had a car fail on inadequate screen washers; drove to Halfords car park fitted a one way valve, cleaned out the filter and it was fine; had to wait a week with it off the road before it could be retested and passed.

Isn't that just an argument for getting a car tested before the old one expires?

SirTainleyBarking wrote:An MOT isn't a guarantee of roadworthiness,

If that isn't enough the experience of Eire should convince you that MOT's are a good idea.

The UK MOT can be dodgy too, I bought a Triumph Herald unseen through an English ad but with a full October to October ticket only three weeks old, shortly afterwards found a seized front brake caliper - seized for YEARS - and a totally rotten chassis. It was intended as a rebuild anyway but worrying that this could have got a clean bill of health.

Irish cars used to be a total nightmare on Northern roads, no test whatsoever and when i lived on the border in Fermanagh some of the cars I saw were truly scary. Having said that, some of the current 'luxury' cars I see are maintained on a complete shoestring - they can just about afford the fuel, but tyres are bald and i'm sure routine maintenance is non-existent. Looks bad to see a two or three year old Range Rover with bald tyres.

In Northern Ireland we have a horrendously hard MOT test, carried out in Government-run Test Centres, with no leeway whatsoever. I broke the brakelight switch on a Herald with my foot getting in whilst waiting in the queue at the centre; I was failed for no brake lights despite having a new switch at home seven miles away. The examiner - quite rightly - told me that if I had an accident on the way home he would fall for it, and made me reapply for a retest. I also failed on a high headlamp, despite my assurances that I could lower it there and then with a screwdriver.

Personally I don't want to see any cars legally on the road with no certificate, there will always be idiots who will take advantage of any lessening in the law and it can only fall back on us all.

Willy Eckerslyke wrote:

ajsphead wrote: I'd like to see a change, allowing the vehicle to be used after a 'fail' notice depending on the severity of the fail, ie take the issue of 'it's failed so can't be on the road' away eg, I had a car fail on inadequate screen washers; drove to Halfords car park fitted a one way valve, cleaned out the filter and it was fine; had to wait a week with it off the road before it could be retested and passed.

Isn't that just an argument for getting a car tested before the old one expires?

Unless it's a been a resto with no MOT. What I wanted to get across is that some cars fail on very small things, which don't affect their fundamental safety. For people who can sort it out themselves but still need to use a car, a sub category would be a huge help - far more of a help than no test at all, which I couldn't possibly agree with, and I think a safe way of interpreting the spirit of the intention to exempt. It's particularly useful for those who work and can only sort out cars in evenings, weekends etc, and particularly for Winter MOTs when there's a shortage of daylight. Just think of it in terms of 4 categories rather than the current 3; green, green with amber and red. It would be like a red with amber.

I can think of another example of an instance where it would have applied. Fail for insecure fuel filter. It was insecure in so far as the holder was a bit slack and could rotate. The only way it would come off would be with a pry bar behind it, so yes, technically a fail, but not really a reason to immobilise a car for a week or more, or whenever you could get round to tapping a new hole in the rear crossmember. (It had been like it for nearly a year & 12K miles and hadn't shifted at all).

Anthony

Inadequate washers DOES affect safety though. However I don't understand why you couldn't either get the MoT station to do the work & instant retest, or just drive straight back after your illegal trip to Halfords?

OneCarefulOwner wrote:Inadequate washers DOES affect safety though. However I don't understand why you couldn't either get the MoT station to do the work & instant retest, or just drive straight back after your illegal trip to Halfords?

Simple answer to both. They couldn't do it and they couldn't do it. Do be a bit careful about the use of the word illegal too. Halfords was on the way home, so it was no more illegal that stopping to put fuel in the car to get you home.

Neither of which has anything to do with the point I'm trying to make.

Anthony

SEE YA wrote:Bad idea leave it, rather have a rolling tax 25 years exempt on cars.

The first time someone has a crash because it has no mot then what?.

Will your insurance go up because of no MOT on your car maybe?.

1. I agree or even 30 or 35 years.

2. Pleb motorists assume (They don't think) that old cars are unsafe and unreliable as it is; if they are exempt from MOTs, that'll give them another excuse, to label old cars as unsafe.

3. I'm sure it will; insurance companies don't need much of an excuse and now we all know who gave them the idea

Older classics actually have to meet a higher braking standard than moderns...the handbrake efficiency of a dual circuit braked car only needs to be 16%- for a single line braking system like my Vitesse it has to be 25% minimum: always a worry at test time I think a slimmed down test would be ideal for older cars, a lot of the modern test doesn't really apply, but with only a single hydraulic pipe feeding the brakes it would be a bit silly to say they don't need testing.

mr rusty wrote:Older classics actually have to meet a higher braking standard than moderns...the handbrake efficiency of a dual circuit braked car only needs to be 16%- for a single line braking system like my Vitesse it has to be 25% minimum: always a worry at test time.

You learn something new every day. explains why my MOT man was so keen on getting my brake lines replaced and handbrake "free play" adjusted.