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

[Mk3iain]

Maybe I am missing something, is there a national crisis or problem with the safety of classic and vintage vehicles?

I don't think so.

I agree with all those disagreeing (:rolleyes: )with the petition. Instead of concentrating on a tiny percentage of vehicles that are not a problem, spend some time tackling the uninsured drivers and unfit foreign commercials etc that are a problem. I am sure it is meant with the best intention but it is a misguided waste of time.

Iain

[Big ray]

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

Well stated, and I agree entirely.

[simonm]

Perhaps I'm echoing what has been said above, but surely the whole point of removing pre 1960 vehicles, not just military, was because we as collectors had shown ourselves to be overwhelmingly trustworthy (there's always an exception). Having an alternative "specialist test" undermines that decision.

 

As to the value of the MOT, again to echo what has been said, it is no more than a snapshot, the vehicle can develop a fault on the way home from the test. Case in point, my own jeep which gets a fair proportion of its miles going too and from the test centre, had the lining of a brake shoe seperate on the way home, of course it was put off road until it was safely fixed. Otherwise I had a full years MOT on a clearly unroadworthy vehicle.

 

Anyway, my Ferret and Saracen have never had an MOT, both are checked each time they go on the road, even if it just to get the newspaper! I have no doubt this is common within this community.

 

But, as to the comment that started this thread, I think it was valid and right to be raised. I disagree with the suggestion, but that is the point of free discussion.

Edited June 21, 2012 by simonm

[Tony B]

Had a van pass it's test and blew the brake line on the ten minute trip back home!

[Zero-Five-Two]

I'll go with the disaggreeing as well, and to add to Mk3ian's piece, there's more than enough modern vehicles and drivers that need sorting out.

 

There will always be a minority who don't maintain their vehicle properly, test or no test, so I don't see any reason to keep it

[79x100]

I'm a little outside this debate as I'm in Belgium where, rather strangely they have never had an MOT for motorcycles (which is my main area of interest). This seems to stem from the fact that they have never prepared proper (in their eyes) Type Approval characteristics for motorcycles and the argument is that they can't test accurately if they don't have the original parameters (a commonsense test is out of the question in this land of official testing centres where two to three hour queues are not uncommon).

 

If I look around the old bike scene here, I would say that there are more bodged heaps than amongst enthusiasts in the UK. I'm not sure whether this relates to national character or the discipline of the MOT test. I still do my annual partial dismantling safety check, as I did in the UK but I suspect that I'm unsual.

 

The question is whether these heaps cause more accidents and I'm not sure that they do. They may have leaky suspension units and brake arms in the wrong position but they are probably ridden accordingly. They are not involved in the cut and thrust of the weekday commute.

 

My main doubts about whether the MOT was truly relevant for older vehicles is the state of the machinery that some dealers sell with a 12 months certificate, chains hanging off, frayed brake cables, bent forks, the lot. It has been patently obvious for years that those who wish to circumvent roadworthiness have been able to do so. WD motorcycles are among the worst offenders as many buyers and owners appear to be blinded by a coat of khaki paint over everything.

[paulbrook]

If anyone wants a test I'll do it for a fee - somewhere around £50 I guess.

 

For that I will point out the blindingly obvious but I will ensure that the small print says that any clean bill of health is only valid for the time and day of the test, and that as always the responsibility for the vehicle remains with the owner/user. I will call it a My Own Test or something similar.

 

Any takers?

[paulbrook]

That was said in jest by the way.............

[timbo]

That was said in jest by the way.............

 

Awww shucks Paul I was just about to book 4 vehicles in for your new test....

[cosrec]

The whole things a great news for most of the posters on here it saves them a bit of hassle and a few bob.

Its better news for a small few who use loopholes to ride about in heaps of (S)crap.

But as pointed out an Mot is only good on the day it was done so why do we have a base line some have to toe and others dont what makes some HMV owners different.

It follows from this that the majority of motor vehicle owners are resonsible citizens and we should do away with MOTs for all vehicles.

Unless of course you can prove different

Edited June 21, 2012 by cosrec

[paulob1]

I am stunned that government has been able to defeat the DVLA. they introduce regulation to rais money, nothing else, it is not about keeping the roads safe it is about keeping their jobs. WHolly commendable i am sure for those thousands of people employed sending my son a letter telling him he has a fine of 50 pound for not insuring his car which has been off the road since he bought it for repairs but not claiming back the tax it had...17 year old had no idea.

the same attempt to fine my dad who had the same issue but they tookhis licence off him after hehad a stroke and he had no idea...these people are real criminals remember...

The dvla AND ANYONE WHO PURPORTS TO THINK THAT THE MOT and other means of testing are essential to road safety are typical of how this country has progressed to the H&S situation it is. Go to Africa, Asia, most Russia, China there are heaps and there are good cars...and everything in between...driving standards are attrocious but it works. I doubt cars falling apart on the road do anything much other than save the peoples lives from the crazy drivers that are on the roads.

Driver attitude and ability and state of mind are and will remain the cause of the majority of car accidents in the UK.

My car passed its mot a week ago. the day after a wheel fell off because our trainee mechanic had tightened the bolts with an air gun...I was stopped when it fell off. and this is not a lie, he had damaged the bolts on the spacers fitted to the car by the previous owner...and they had cracked. If they had not taken the wheel off becuase the MOT said the discs had tiny cracks which they did, the wheel would likely still be on. okay the discs may have broken in a few years time as the hair line cracks may have eventually failed...but how did that help my now damaged car due to the wheel bolts breaking...mot did not help at all...

 

each event has a corresponding consequence...this is the way of life. the MOT is not the answer to road safety..

[Marmite!!]

I am stunned that government has been able to defeat the DVLA.

 

I thought it was VOSA that was in charge of MOT's not the DVLA

 

these people are real criminals remember...

Please refer to the Forum rules.. we have members who work for the DVLA, VOSA & other government departments..

VOSA/DVLA/DfT & other Government Departments & the Emergency Services

 

Any derogatory/inflammatory remarks made about any of the above or their staff will be removed without notice if we feel that it brings HMVF in to disrepute.

[paulob1]

Thanks Lee, it may well be VOSA but not sure my comments were at anything other than normal speak and were of course just my opinion...not an accusation or a fact, but if you think they breach forum rules I will not repeat them.

 

However I do believe that the reasons for taking this money and the introduction of yet another complexity to the taxing and insuring of cars/vehicles on the road is purely for the raising of revenue. It has nothing to do with safety or making sure people have insurance, and this appears to me to be taking money from people under false pretences, I think its called fraudulently obtaining money, which is a criminal offence...all be it on a national scale but it cannot be justified, just like the annual SORN...that was introduced to stop insurance fraud and tax evasion, it did nothing of the sort, it was about raising revenue.

 

The latest scam, oops scheme will generate cash for a while until we all know about it then we will sorn and reclaim the tax asap and it will backfire on the DVLA as they will ultimately lose the road tax revenue. But people will still drive on the roads uninsured because of driving bans, insurance too high and or refused and with cars that will never be mot'd, watch this space for ever more sightings of cloned cars...its the safest way for the crooks right now...the chip in the number plate has a lot of merits...

[paulob1]

ooh just thought, can I call uninsured drivers of cloned and untaxed cars... 'Crooks'. we may have some of them on here so it may breach the forum rules...sorry if it does it was a genuine faux pas on my part.

 

I apologise to any one who may be offended about my opinion of crooks and criminals...

[private mw]

no offence taken mate now where,s my balaclava and crowbar ! :red:

[Marmite!!]

Here's a couple more to sign

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/844

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2843

[private mw]

E-petitions are a good thing i need to start one. please can i work more hours get up earlier than 6am for work and pay more taxes on taxes just so my neighbours don,t have too cos theyve got 10 children and grow green plants up there lofts with powerfull halogen lights and filter systems ! ! :whistle:

[Tony B]

I know the modern Audi's handbook has 'To change front position indicator light bulb, refer to main dealear'.

[private mw]

to change refer to A if that doesnt work try B and if that doesnt work refer back to A :sweat:

[mike65]

I know the modern Audi's handbook has 'To change front position indicator light bulb, refer to main dealear'.

That's not a problem as most would appear to be missing the stalk by the steering wheel that makes them light up anyway.:-D

 

 

Mike

[paulbrook]

Awww shucks Paul I was just about to book 4 vehicles in for your new test....

 

And I would have politely declined thanks - not enough oxy acetylene and big hammers involved for me!

[b2414]

As a ex classic car nut with over 40 years of working on them and ownership of anything from a Ford pop to rebuilding 5 sunbeam alpines not all at once I have found that over the last 10 to 15 years it has been more difficult to find a mot station that can test these old cars due to the tester not having the experience of testing these cars and in some cases trying to test them to modern standards and not to when the car was manufactured .

Therefor i think that the 1960 cut-off date is a good thing as most classic owners know there cars inside out and keep them in good order . cheers Bill :cheesy:

[Tony B]

That's not a problem as most would appear to be missing the stalk by the steering wheel that makes them light up anyway.:-D

 

 

Mike

 

Ah well, your'e not considered competent to turn them on anyway! Or the windscreen wipers. That's for the computer to decide! :nono:

[Marmite!!]

Just been asked if the Poll at the top of the page is Anonymous.. Yes it is, no one can see who voted for what.

[paulob1]

thats it, its only a forum and we may take ourselves a bit too seriously at times..