Practically Classics Forum

Irrespective of whether MOT exemption is a good or bad thing, I have asked the question, what is special about 1960? We could end up with yet another definition of “Historic vehicle”, to add the Brownline of 31 December 1973 and that of FIVA .

As it happens, I think MOT exemption is potentially a bad thing (So I read, so does Ron Gammons, the well known MG specialist and competitor). It will only take one accident, for people to start assuming old cars aren’t safe. Because most people’s experience of old cars is of old bangers, there is already a common assumption that most old cars can barely go.

It would be of far greater benefit if we had a level playing field, based on an accepted definition/age (I think rolling thirty years would be fine), where any “Benefits”, derived from historic status, were enjoyed across the board (It might put to bed these stupid debates about whether my 51 Plate Vectra is a classic car, as the answer will be “If it’s still about in twenty years, yes it will be!”). As to MOTs, perhaps there is a case for requiring them after a certain mileage or every three years, whichever comes first. I would suggest applying this across the board, as surely ultra high mileage cars need checking more often than one a year, whilst the little used, fine weather special, probably doesn’t need checking every twelve months.

Posted on ppc mag forum

posted by ACE
We, the UK population that is, have a major problem. The Germans and
the French. Both have previously sort to subjugate us to their rule, Hitler,
Napoleon and others have tried and failed, so they're sore.
They do not understand our attitudes toward cars and bikes, and won't
easily be moved from their course.
Bottom line, the don't want to listen to Britain at all ever, and listening
to a minority (even a large one) of British citizens is not high on their
list of priorities.

They are likely to steamroller this one through, we must consider how
to brow beat the coalition into implementing it in such a way that it
changes as little as possible here. Persuade them that this is the EU
bringing places like Romania into line with what the UK already has.

MOT's for trailers and ESPECIALLY CARAVANS is a
good thing, I hate them with a passion, and anything to get rid of as
many as possible has to be a good thing in my personal opinion.

Posted by Renrut

PS I voted this statement down in it's rating by giving it '1 star' (zero
not an option unfortunately)

Others might want to do the same to show what we think?

Not sure if it's even meant to be used in that way but made me feel
slightly better anyway!

It'll be interesting to see the responses on this. Knowing how a lot of
other EU legislation is enforce (CE marking for example) I suspect this
may fizzle into something insignificant i.e. become something like the UK
have already therefore no real change.

Bear in mind the UK government doesn't really want to be dishing out any
more bad or expensive news than it has to at the moment unless its
nothing to do with it (nice distraction) or that they could do anything about
(Ergo not their fault) - allowing the EU to introduce lots of expensive
changes will be something they'll want to avoid, especially when we have a
pretty strict testing policy already compared to some countries.

Mitsuru wrote:We, the UK population that is, have a major problem. The Germans and
the French. Both have previously sort to subjugate us to their rule, Hitler,
Napoleon and others have tried and failed, so they're sore.

Sorry to be blunt, M, but in my view that's just rubbish... A little less of the rabid nationalism in all countries and we as a human race might be able to live in harmony with each other a lot better...

As for the rest, on my travels in France and Germany I've seen plenty of modified cars and bikes...

One question the post does raise, though, is where the idea originated from, was it a certain country's idea to introduce this legislation or was it just the EU bureaucrats (of all nations) who just wanted to keep their gravy train jobs going... Anyone know?

Hobby read my post properly, then edit yours please because you are
making out that I am posting the Hitler Napoleon thing as mine not
the fact which is I am QUOTING what someone has said on a different
forum!!!!!

http://www.ppcmag.co.uk/forum/viewtopic ... 31#p104031

One month gone, 10,000 signatures.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/37784

Two months to go.

I have not signed this because the petitioner has completely misinterpreted what is proposed, as has Nick Larkin in the latest Practical Classics. The proposal is to allow member states to define a testing regime for Historic Vehicles, nothing more. It then goes on to define a historic vehicle. There is no suggestion that historic vehicles will be exempt from the MoT or that vehicles failing to meet the criteria will be banned from the roads. Those are figments of someone's imagination. The proposed definition of a historic vehicle is unworkable in any case as there is no database of the "technical characteristics" of vehicles. The FBHVC has responded by proposing a simpler definition that would not jeopardise the status of any current historic vehicles and points out that modification and parts substitution are part of classic ownership. On the other hand there is a strong argument that the concessions offered to historic vehicles are there to preserve our heritage and that the more extreme modifications should not have this status. I'm not suggesting for one moment that they should be banned, but is a replica or kit car a historic vehicle simply because the donor was, or a jacked-up Ford Popular with a V8 engine? I don't think so, often fine pieces of engineering but historic, no.

Mitsuru wrote:Hobby read my post properly, then edit yours please because you are
making out that I am posting the Hitler Napoleon thing as mine not
the fact which is I am QUOTING what someone has said on a different
forum!!!!!]

By posting such quotes and not saying you don't agree with them would indicate that you do agree with them and have used them as a way of showing your views... If you are now saying that you don't agree with what was said then why post it without any comments from yourself in the first place? If you are going to do wholesale quotes from another forum then you need to ensure you also say whether they represent your line of thinking or are just quotes showing others' views, in this case a simple link to the thread would have sufficed with a comment along the lines of "this it what others are saying"... Less chance of misinterpretation then! The other thing, it is, as I said, a complete misinterpretation of the classic/modified scene over there...

Hi Suffolkpete

I dont know if anyone truely knows for certain where this will all end up, i hope that you are right and its all just scaremongering. On the other hand i have a deep distrust of the European Union.

Re this being just a directive for member states to decide upon as they choose... what do you make of this from the 'Association of Car Enthusiasts'...

The FBHVC also take the assumption that this is a Directive and point out “it has to have approval by each EU member country before it is adopted” 100% correct if it’s a Directive. But this is not how the EU works when it comes to Regulations. ACE wonder why so many people have missed this important change in the type of proposal, when the title of the paper is very clear? Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC. That clearly states it’s a Regulation that will replace an older Directive!

Again, i dont know.. have they misinterpreted this or have they noticed something that everyone else is missing? OK, there is some suggestion that member states will be allowed a free hand where Historic vehicles are concerned but again my distrust kicks in!

Personally i think its better to make our voice heard now before its too late regardless of reassurances from some (and only some) MEP's that 'everything will be alright'. Other MEP's are saying that this is something to be seriously concerned about and still others (UKIP and some Conservatives) are saying we're already Doomed! Who do you believe?

I'm not disputing the fact that the EU want to repeal the existing Roadworthiness Directive but it is pure conjecture that modified vehicles will be banned from the roads. You cannot campaign against a non-existent issue. We should keep a close watch on this and respond to any proposals with reasoned argument but you should treat with caution any attempt by politicians to whip up anti-EU sentiment for their own political ends. I'm not a great fan of the EU, but we should stick to the facts.

suffolkpete wrote:treat with caution any attempt by politicians to whip up anti-EU sentiment

Too late! im already there ive been looking forward to the day the EU implodes since black wednesday 20 years ago.

I take your point however.

That said, what concerns me is that the EU will stitch us up with unnecessary and unwanted laws before most of us realise what theyre up to.