DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Other topics
Post Reply
User avatar
nikbj68
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Anglesey, North Wales.
Contact:

DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by nikbj68 »

Originally posted by AE413 on the ACOC FORUM
The Department for Transport has put out a consultation document with options for changes titled Vehicles of Historical Interest - Consultation on Exemptions from Annual Roadworthiness Testing. The consultation period closes on 2 Nov 2016 so there is no time to collate response by seeking members' opinions but individuals may respond directly. The proposal can be found at http://www.gov.uk/government/consultati ... c-interest.
This came to my attention via the Riley Register Newsletter received yesterday 27 Oct 2016.
Don't be fooled by the headline 'sweeteners' of saving the cost of annual MOT & Tax, the 'preferred option' reads like really bad news for the future of older car motoring... :evil:
Hawk 289 FiA...AT LAST!!!
User avatar
peterc
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:05 am
Location: Surrey

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by peterc »

Nick,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
They didn't give much time to comment did they. Also shouldn't this have been made more widely advertised especially to clubs like ours.
I see several problems.
1) If they decide our older cars are allowed to be exempt from an MOT what would happen if you had an accident that involved an injury. Would the insurers not demand some form of proof that the vehicle was roadworthy by having an MOT type inspection. Yes, I know that it only shows the vehicle was safe at the very time of the MOT and not a guarantee of it's state anytime later but it's better than nought.
2) Many classic cars get tweaked over the years. E.g. Improving the MGB front suspension by converting to telescopic shock absorbers or even using Gerry's tubular conversion. This would then prevent it from being classed as original MGB. I'm not sure how this is supposed to prevent poorly maintained/ constructed vehicles off the road. What is wrong with the current system of having an MOT.
3) The topic of restricted mileage was raised a few months ago by Roger King. Many of our members happily do reasonable mileages in their cars and would not want a restriction of any sort just because some people like me don't use theirs enough.

Personally it looks like options 2 or 4 would be more sensible. This keeps the cars being checked to see that they are road worthy regardless of whether they have been enhanced and therefore not truly original. I'm sure that a number of donors used to build Hawk's were not 100% original.
Peter C
User avatar
peterc
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:05 am
Location: Surrey

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by peterc »

I am trying to read between the lines to see what the additional implications are.
As a radically altered vehicle any Hawk immediately looses the 5 points for a body/chassis.
If you have then modified either the front or rear suspension at all you loose 2 more points and therefore fall short of the 8 points needed to be original.
Of course they are considering ignoring mods made prior to 1988.
If the end result is merely to ensure more vehicles continue to have an MOT then I don't have an issue as I believe it is useful to have an independent check of the car in case I have missed something.
I somehow think that they want to sweep up all the hot rods that only have a body in common with the original and re classify them. In doing so many other converted or modified cars will be classed the same.
Peter C
User avatar
Dale Bowman
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 7:07 pm

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by Dale Bowman »

Personally, even if I had a MOT exempt car, I would still go ahead and do the annual pilgrimage, just for own peace of mind
There are 3 types of people in this world
Those who can count and those who cant

DB427SC #006, 427 SO, Toploader
1965 Daytona Coupe ~ Sold
User avatar
Roger King
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:29 pm
Location: St Ives, Cambs

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by Roger King »

The general classic press and FHBVC have been banging on about this document for some years now - the consultation has been out for a couple of months. Clubs registered with the Federation have all been kept very aware of it, and the mainstream mags like C&SC have also been quite prominently discussing it. It is tied in to the forthcoming LEZ legislation to a great extent.

Basically, get in there and vote to retain MOTs for all cars, even those now made exempt by the recent 1960 ruling. Without tax and without MOT we will have no voice or say in any matters that may arise and FIVA are very keen to introduce limited mileages of, say, 1500kms per year. Even with the drop in the value of the mile post-brexit, that will still be less than 1000 miles a year, which is a complete joke. The majority of owners in this club have kitcars, which are registered variously but predominantly as tax-paying kitcars, not historics. This won't therefore affect them.... yet

And yes, most owners of pre-'60 cars are discovering that regardless of what the law says their insurance companies are still requiring an MOT. And quite right, too.
User avatar
nikbj68
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Anglesey, North Wales.
Contact:

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by nikbj68 »

Just the idea of 30+ year old vehicles not getting MOT`d scares the crap out of me!
Terrible terrible idea, and why, when the DVLA makes money from MOt`s would they exempt 200,000 sources of income?!
All those XR2s, Astras, Peugeot 205 owners etc... now happily saving a couple of hundred quid a year on MOT & Tax sure as eggs is eggs won`t be spending that money on maintenance!
Hawk 289 FiA...AT LAST!!!
User avatar
Roger King
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:29 pm
Location: St Ives, Cambs

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by Roger King »

nikbj68 wrote:Just the idea of 30+ year old vehicles not getting MOT`d scares the crap out of me!
Terrible terrible idea, and why, when the DVLA makes money from MOt`s would they exempt 200,000 sources of income?!
All those XR2s, Astras, Peugeot 205 owners etc... now happily saving a couple of hundred quid a year on MOT & Tax sure as eggs is eggs won`t be spending that money on maintenance!
Precisely because it will take away the owners' right to a voice. More legislation can then be brought in to encourage the removal of these (supposedly dangerous and smelly) old vehicles (remember the scandalously un-green 'scrappage' scheme?), which will have the knock-on effect of helping to increase new car sales, thereby aiding the motor industry. Anybody spotted the main beneficiary yet? Not difficult to see, with a Tory government (although that makes little difference these days, they're all the same)...
Karl
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Germany

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by Karl »

Over here TUEV inspection is every two years, no matter if the car has historic status or not. Only benefit for historic registration is that you pay a fixed tax every year, which is good when you have a big V8! And you still can go in the town centre, low emission rules do not apply.
User avatar
nikbj68
T289R Member
T289R Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Anglesey, North Wales.
Contact:

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by nikbj68 »

So if we`re doing this to standardise with Europe, Can we have the German system please?! :roll:
Hawk 289 FiA...AT LAST!!!
Paul Blore
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Leicestershire, UK
Contact:

Re: DfT Roadworthiness Consultative Document

Post by Paul Blore »

nikbj68 wrote:So if we`re doing this to standardise with Europe, Can we have the German system please?! :roll:
Be very careful what you wish for Nik.

Paul
Post Reply