E-petition for annual safety inspection of pre-1960s vehicles

[TooTallMike]

Apologies if this has already been posted but I couldn't find anything.

 

"Do not scrap all annual safety checks for pre-1960 cars

...The Government has announced its intention to scrap the MoT for all pre-1960 vehicles from November. This petition recognises the critical importance of an annual inspection of all older vehicles by a qualified third party and calls for the hopelessly unsuitable current MoT not to be abandoned, but to be replaced with a mandatory, more appropriate annual basic safety check for all classic and historic vehicles of more than 25 years old."

 

Only a few days to run but this is a well worth signing: https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34242

 

Not all vehicle owners can be relied upon to maintain their own vehicles to a roadworthy standard without some form of obligatory independent inspection. These irresponsible owners will regard the upcoming changes to the MoT rules as an opportunity to make savings on basic servicing and maintenance. It is now only a matter of time before a serious accident brings unwanted attention to our hobby and the erosion of our rights will begin - limitations on annual mileages, no driving at night, no driving on motorways etc etc.

 

If it were up to me I would introduce an obligatory basic annual inspection for all vehicles. Please sign.

 

- MG

[CVRTNick]

I agree,as it sounds great but any liability is now transferred from the Gov to you!!!!!

[cordenj]

Quite correctly liability was, and will remain, with us as vehicle owners/drivers. The MoT is only ever a snapshot at the time of inspection.

 

When I responded to original government consultation, my request was for a new "MoT Lite" that covered the basics for older vehicles (much as the original did when it was introduced in the 1960's).

 

My local garage in Reigate, who has a number of pre-1960 owning customers on his books, is going to offer a service of an annual check and a signed note on his headed paper to say all ok or any recommended works.

 

While I maintain my Jeep myself to a high standard, I will appreciate the second independent view and will use his proposed new service....BUT as Mike says, there are bound to be a minority who will abuse the system and that could well lead to greater restrictions on the use of pre_1960 vehicles.

[snowtracdave]

Agree with all the previous comments . Petition signed .

[w896andy]

Sorry to not agree and throw a spanner in the works (pun not intended !) but the time to consult on this has passed. The government public consultation period closed back in January and the decision has been made so not sure what a petition will do now. The Government brought this in as part of an election pledge to reduce red tape in society and having looked at the very low MOT failure rate of pre-1960's vehicles felt it was a good move to reduce costs to classic vehicle owners who most often use their vehicles for shows, display etc. always at their own costs and to bring it in line with vehicles over 3.5 tons and I have to say I agree.

 

Liability has never been with the government or MOT stations it has always been with the driver of the vehicle to ensure it is legal and safe to use on the road at all times so no changes. An MOT test is only valid at the time of testing so if you have a test and drive out onto the road and say your lights fail a mile down the road and you are hit because somebody can't see you then you are at fault not the testing station. The only time bound liability for comeback to the testing station is corrosion for a period of about 3 months after the test (because the chassis didn't just happen to rust out overnight where as most other test items can instantly fail in theory). You would then have to sue the garage not the government but again you would still be facing the fines and points for an unsafe vehicle on the road.

 

No testing requirements on pre-1960 vehicles over 3.5 tons has been in place for years and to my knowledge has never caused a problem. I'm an ex-MOT tester, a trained Mechanic and currently own a Diamond T, Jeep, Land Rovers, etc. and I ensure like any vehicles its safe and legal so hopefully my opinion is relevant to you all.

 

As John mentions above there will be plenty of options for vehicle inspections. I would suggest if anybody wants an MOT completed or is not technically happy to judge if a vehicle is safe that they carry on and have an MOT anyway, it will remain optional, if you don't want a full MOT then as suggested about just ask for a safety inspection or 'MOT Lite' as it was called above. But please don't think that moves the liability away from you or anybody who decides not to maintain a vehicle and use it on the road.

 

Regards

 

Andy :cheesy:

[Big ray]

I agree,as it sounds great but any liability is now transferred from the Gov to you!!!!!

 

Actually the responsibility has always been with the driver / owner, its your responsibility to ensure that your vehicle shall always be compliant with the need to be roadworthy at all times when on a public road. Given that most pre- 1960 vehicle owners are members of a club, I feel that we should act responsibly and police our members. Our own area will I hope introduce structured evenings on maintenance and repairs, and self help, something that has always existed, but now I feel is a must. As previously mentioned in this thread, vehicles over 3.5 tonnes have been exempted for some considerable time without any adverse affect on road safety.

[paulob1]

rubbish, but then thats just my opinion. Petition not signed

[N.O.S.]

rubbish, but then thats just my opinion. Petition not signed

 

Care to explain why you think it's rubbish? You may have some very valid points, but without any further explanation your post is -

 

wait for it -

 

Pointless :-D :n00b:

[griff66]

not sure about this one seems wrong to be voting for more legislation ie red tape,still think if you are at show and u see vehicle thats driven on road and its obviously not fit have a chat with owner. ( if u get a sore nose dont blame me!)

[mike65]

Cannot see the need for this petition or some of the reasoning.

An MOT only says your vehicle is roadworthy at a specific time. You are and will always be responsible for the vehicle you are driving being in a safe and roadworthy condition, regardless of ownership.

I have seen a car pass an MOT and be un roadworthy within 200 yards. Beat that if you can.

It was my brothers 1974 Trans-Am. Passed the test then blew every brake light bulb the minute he hit the brakes (I was behind). Oh yes it was 8 or 10 bulbs on that version.

As for home mechanics not doing the job properly, the same can be said of garages.

Brother -in-law had a Maestro, went to the garage for a new clutch, a gearbox out job. 6 weeks later I was showing how to visually look for disc pad wear, when I noticed the bolts holding the gearbox to the sub frame had 2-3 inches of bolt showing. Appears they could not be bothered to do them up properly. Bearing in mind I needed to jack the transmission to get them through I suspect they were lazy.

 

Everybody who sticks a satnav to the windscreen in the sweep of the wiper blades is theoretically making there car un-roadworthy and an MOT failure. Halfords will happily do this for you. You cannot have a crack or chip bigger than 10mm in front of the driver and 40mm in the remainder of the sweep. So you cannot tell me a satnav is not an issue.

 

Personally I think there should be a petition for all drivers to be subjected to a common sense test, which will free up road space, reduce road accidents, minimise congestion and aid fuel economy, as most will fail.

On top of which car manufacturers should make it possible to change a bulb within 5 minutes without the use of specialist tools etc

 

Mike

[timbo]

I know this is sitting on the fence but I can definitely see both sides of the argument. All my vehicles (with one exception), are post 1960 anyway, but are exempt as tracked vehicles.

 

On balance I think this is a useful reduction in red tape and cost. Ultimately it is all our responsibilities to make sure our vehicles are safe. That has always been the case and this change makes it no different.

[private mw]

well its the only thing where i will save £40 a year from not having a MOT though i think road safety is paramount i drive a hgv and always check round it every morning daily defects its the law , but i think we pay enough to stay on the roads rising tax fuel duty and insurance premiums and rising everything else food ect the only thing that doesnt go up is my wages even landfill tax has gone up so in my eyes ive got a bit back ! my opinion and as said before safety first if its not right dont drive it ! :-\

[griff66]

lets face it how many pre 1960 vehicles do u see on the road 1 percent 2 percent of all vehicles on the road, far better to spend money on ensuring foreign hgv drivers haven't had one to many vodkas on the overnight ferry coming to uk!,hope and cant see this petition going anywhere.

[andym]

I'm not sure about the point of this either, the reasoning is fatally flawed. There are a very, very small number of pre-1960 vehicles on the road. Those that are properly maintained by collectors will be roadworthy. Any that aren't will probably have fallen apart by now anyway - what do you think is the likelihood of a sixty year-old car surviving without maintenance?

 

Andy

[Tony B]

The MOT is not a golden ticket, now safe till next one. Theres nothing to stop you asking a friendly local gargae to look it over once a year. My local one would be quite happy to do that. Give it a check on the rolling road and up on the ramp. Basically thats all a pre 1960 vehicle has to have anyway.

[TooTallMike]

... Those that are properly maintained by collectors will be roadworthy. ...

 

...and the logic therefore suggests that those that are not properly maintained by owners will be un-roadworthy. For some owners, the MoT is the only time anyone looks over their vehicle. The petition may be percieved to be too late but sadly at least in my case I missed the original consultation. Those who appreciate the maintainance their vehicles require are not the concern, but those who don't who could really wreck this hobby for everyone else.

 

- MG

[Tony B]

You do have a point Mike. However as Frank the MOT inspector said to me, there are owners of modern vehicles who never lift the bonnet, and do nothing until something breacks. A car going in for the first MOT after three years can be a unroadworthy wreck.

[TooTallMike]

You do have a point Mike. However as Frank the MOT inspector said to me, there are owners of modern vehicles who never lift the bonnet, and do nothing until something breacks. A car going in for the first MOT after three years can be a unroadworthy wreck.

 

Correct, but at least at that point the problems are picked up and dealt with. With no-one to highlight any developing issues they will only be found when they go catastrophic. The next generation of owners are far less likely to appreciate the high ratio of maintenance/mileage required to keep these things going.

 

I like the idea of MVT, IMPS etc. offering 'maintenance classes' but it's self-selecting - responsible owners will attend, those who don't understand or don't care, won't.

 

- MG

[Tony B]

its a Chiken and egg. Most of the younger generation coming into military vehicles are normally through parents, the sheer cost of them now precludes anyone but a real fanatic. My son Tom and Harry as examples, your youngster as well. Its up to us to teach them , I know my son spends a lot of time under the motors. Hopefully our Grandkids will take the vehicles on to the next level.

[Runflat]

The government public consultation period closed back in January and the decision has been made so not sure what a petition will do now.

 

The public consultation may be over but the legislation isn't in. The Goverment can always make a U-turn when drafting the legislation; and, if being made through primary legislation, the Opposition can table amendments, or, if secondary, can call for a debate.

[Tony B]

The public consultation may be over but the legislation isn't in. The Goverment can always make a U-turn when drafting the legislation; and, if being made through primary legislation, the Opposition can table amendments, or, if secondary, can call for a debate.

 

If both sides are not to busy squabbaling over other things.

[Pete Ashby]

I’m very disappointed at the reaction here, the underlying message appears to be that the owners of pre 1960 vehicles under 3.5 tons are not to be trusted or judged competent to maintain their vehicles in a basic road worthy state. This is not a message that should be portrayed individually or collectively by the vintage movement as a whole.

 

This is not a logical argument based on any fact that I am aware of. If the argument was based on factual data then vehicles exceeding 3.5 tons (which as we know have been exempt for years) would bear witness to the fact that owners are not capable of maintaining their vehicles, a fact I do not see proven. Indeed it can be correctly argued that this class of vehicle poses a greater threat to road safety due to increased size and weight. We can all sight cases of GMC’s back in the eighties with defective flexi hoses and cracked tyres etc but I can speak from experience that those individuals were and continue to be dealt with by having a quite word with the show organiser and or the club safety officer. It’s your hobby and it’s your responsibility to police it for all of us, it’s not a case of turning a blind eye. Owning a historic vehicle comes with a certain amount of personal responsibility and professionalism. So if this system has worked fine for vehicles over 3.5 tons the same policing will work for vehicles under 3.5 tons, just because it’s smaller it does not become more dangerous.

 

There are elements particularly in Brussels that would be only too pleased to remove all vintage vehicles from the road by bureaucratic and punitive measures. We should not be giving them ammunition by suggesting that hoards of owners will be taking to the roads in unsafe vehicles.

There seems to be a feeling in the western world that legislation will cure all ills and abdicate the individual from any form of responsibility. If there’s a law to cover the misdemeanour there appears to be an attitude of……. ‘then I don’t need to bother or get involved….. they will sort it out’….., well ‘they’ will and do and your personal freedom is eroded year on year as a result. No amount of legislation will prevent individuals from committing unsafe acts if they are determined to do it. It is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure this tiny minority, if they exist, are internally policed and reported if necessary to the right authorities.

 

In conclusion the exemption of pre 1960 vehicles from MoT should be seen as a very positive move on behalf of the bureaucratic system to acknowledge the vintage movement as whole as responsible people (there’s that word responsible again).

 

Gentlemen we should rise to the occasion and not wish to hide behind more bureaucracy.

 

Pete

[Marmite!!]

In conclusion the exemption of pre 1960 vehicles from MoT should be seen as a very positive move on behalf of the bureaucratic system to acknowledge the vintage movement as whole as responsible people (there’s that word responsible again).

 

Gentlemen we should rise to the occasion and not wish to hide behind more bureaucracy.

 

Pete

Well said.. only a while back we were all fighting to keep MOT exemptions, now we have been given a new exemption we are being asked to vote against it :shocked:

[griff66]

how about starting a petition for more bureaucratic red tape!

[utt61]

It seems to me that the people who don't maintain their pre-1960 light vehicles now will continue not to maintain them, and those who do maintain theirs will also continue. There can be very, very few of the former since the figures clearly show that there are very few MOT failures with this type of vehicle.

 

It seems to me that the only risk is that there may be people who think with the abolition of the MOT they no longer have to maintain their pre-1960 vehicles and as a reseult let them deteriorate into a dangerous condition, or who set out to buy a pre-1960 vehicle since they think it doesn't need to be maintained. Will this be a problem - I very much doubt it.

 

I actually find it quite refreshing that for once some degree of trust and judgement is being given back to the individual, and the costs of our hobby are reducing by a very, very small amount. I will certainly not be signing the petition (quite apart from being pointless I actually think it is misguided, but that is my personal view).

 

Remember that the stupid, irresponsible and dangerous people will always be that, legislation won't stop them. It is, always has been, and will continue to be an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle whether or not it has an MOT certificate.

 

Round here (Dorset) it is now almost certain that every day you will see several vehicles which are obviously unroadworthy (eg defective lights), and you will often see the same ones regularly, unrepaired, for months. I have never seen a pre-1960 vehicle in this category.

 

The problem is not the oldies.