Practically Classics Forum

Ah 18/11/12........not so bad then but if I'd known I would have taken it off the road for six months to save £40...



.......not really

My 5p worth, reducing the MOT interval isn't a good idea. The wife's car (a modern) did very little mileage last year (1500 miles) as she changed jobs and has to go to work by bus and train. That needed a load of suspension work, not because it was worn, but because rubber bits age and dry out and fail at less miles because they aren't getting used

So the thought that classics are less worn becuase of low mileage is frankly crap. The series hasn't got a MOT yet, as the current tyres are shot. Loads of tread, but perished. I'm not driving that any distance, except to an MOT where the testing garage replaces them before starting.

They want to save money for classics drivers. Reinstate the rolling tax exemption. The series was registered June '73. (And because they had a long waiting list, it was made a few weeks before registration) Thanks for that Gordon

All points that I could make already well covered here.

I can just see those who dream up insurance premiums rolling on the floor and peeing in the air with utter delight at this news.

Prepare to have your bank accounts raped.........

Maaarrghk wrote:All points that I could make already well covered here.

And me, though Martin sums it up best in my view... I also wonder what the Insurance Companies will do now there is no longer a "roadworthyness" test for older vehicles...

All valid points. The only one i'll add is the government probably earn very little in the grand scheme of things from MOT's of cars pre-dating 1960. But think how much money they earn (direct into their coffers, nut just VAT) from all the 1973-1987 cars on the roads.....

So they'll never do that.

I am aware I exist outside this debate, being from the other end of the world. But I'll put my tuppence in anyway.

We don't have annual MOT's (RWC) here. We are only required to get an MOT (RWC) when we sell a registered car or we put one back on the road after it's been unregistered (untaxed) for longer than three months. The RWC test here is extremely harsh and usually expensive to pass.

You do occasionally see some real piles being driven around, but the Police are pretty diligent in slapping a defect notice on anything rusty, with excessive smoke or bald tyres. Incidentally one of their favourite places for spot-checks is right outside the building I work in.

Statistically the incidents of unroadworthy vehicles being a factor in crashes are very small in my state. Hence the main insurer and auto club (Royal Auto Club of Victoria) has consistently argued we don't need annual tests.

I think the key difference is the need to get an RWC to put a car back on the road. As I understand the new UK system, you can pull any old wreck out of a field, toddle off to the Post Office with the V5 and walk out with a free tax disk. Nobody checks that this car even has wheels on it, let alone that it's roadworthy-ish. That's the bit I find hard to swallow, and hard to support.

What I dont like about the lack of testing here (and this will sound like a backfip in my opinion) is the gradual decline I see in old cars during the "banger" phase. With an annual test, if you have to spend $300 on the car each year to keep our car on the road, nobody would grumble too much. But after ten years of no tests, the car might be awarded a defect notice, or the owner wants to sell it. By now the expense is $3000 to put the car through an honest RWC. Much more than the car is worth, so it is scrapped and another future classic is gone forever.

Do I put my cars through an RWC every year? Certainly not, because it would be a waste of money. The system works for me and I am confident in my own abilities to decide what need to be done to keep my vehicles roadworthy. That certainly does not apply to everyone.

Remember how everyone went mad buying tax-exempt cars in the UK in the late 90's before the rolling exemption was frozen? Being tax exempt and MOT exempt will mean the only compulsory cost for a pre-1960's vehicles will be the insurance. That means values will probably jump.

Perhaps desperate students will try and run a 1950's car on a shoestring? Or will they be effectively priced out of the market by an increase in values?

Who will check the cars fit the description? Is a Ford 100E fitted with a Pinto engine legal without an MOT and SVA test? If the owner does not declare the engine change and there is no MOT test, who will know?

Registration number transfers used to require an MOT on the plate donor. If no MOT is required, can any pre-1960 vehicle be robbed of it's plate with the stroke of a pen? Even if the vehicle was scrapped long ago and only exists as an old V5?

On cars 25+ years old we have the choice here of full registration at the regular rate, or paying for 45/90 day per year use on Historic registration at lower cost. It's a brilliant system. A similar system for the UK or at least reinstating the rolling exemption is definitely a much better solution for your classic car moevement.

Just to clarify a bit what Brett has written above; this pertains to the state of Victoria..other systems operate in other states of Australia, some may be the same as Victoria I'm not sure, but in NSW passenger vehicles over 3 years old are tested annually before re-registration (commonly known as a "Pink Slip" even though it hasn't been pink for many years)

Cars on club plates (conditional registration) are also required to be examined yearly and the NSW club plate system is inferior IMO as vehicles can only be used on designated club runs.

Testing for unregistered (lapsed over 3 months) vehicles is even more stringent ("Blue Slip") and is regarded as something to be avoided if at all possible. This is the simplified version of course, but I think in general some kind of inspection is vital even if it just picks up an oversight on the part of an otherwise competent and conscientious owner.

Danny Hone

My 2p.

No MOT = stupid idea. Pretty sure it was an editorial in a recent PC (CBA to check) that spoke about an accident waiting to happen and I couldn't agree more with this. The first classic car that causes an accident due to an MOT testable issue (e.g. brakes) will generate a knee jerk reaction and the suggestion that modern cars with their ABS, power steering etc are safer and we shoud ban old cars from the road (or at the very least subject them to a more rigorous MOT).

Welshie wrote:All valid points. The only one i'll add is the government probably earn very little in the grand scheme of things from MOT's of cars pre-dating 1960. But think how much money they earn (direct into their coffers, nut just VAT) from all the 1973-1987 cars on the roads.....

So they'll never do that.

Agree with that. No way is the government going to forego all that revenue.

Personally, I believe that road tax should be per person, not per vehicle. So I have the option of owning a winter driver, a classic and a motorbike (which I can't possibly drive all at once) without having the full road tax on all of them.