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

[ArtistsRifles]

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

 

I thought that was a peculiarity of BMW's????? Together with the head lamps that flash on and off automatically when it gets close to your rear bumper whilst you are doing the legal limit....

[mike65]

I thought that was a peculiarity of BMW's????? Together with the head lamps that flash on and off automatically when it gets close to your rear bumper whilst you are doing the legal limit....

 

I believe the indicator stalk on BMWs actually operator the headlights.

Indicate left or right the headlights flash.

Yjere is a sensor which detects a mechanic and the computer automatically adjusts to MOT mode.

 

Mike

[Tony B]

I believe the indicator stalk on BMWs actually operator the headlights.

Indicate left or right the headlights flash.

Yjere is a sensor which detects a mechanic and the computer automatically adjusts to MOT mode.

 

Mike

I'n inclined to think BMW's and Audi's often have more intilegence in the vehicle than the driver. Not that I'm prejudiced, if you don't drive a bus, or military vehicles I HATE YOU!!!!! GET OFF MY ROAD!!!! :angry

[private mw]

do us HGV drivers fall in your list of liked drivers i always give way to buses out of stops ! :drive:

[Tony B]

You're in the 'depends ' catergory for LGV, but you drive an MV nyway! :-D

[private mw]

cheers .

[mike65]

I'n inclined to think BMW's and Audi's often have more intilegence in the vehicle than the driver. Not that I'm prejudiced, if you don't drive a bus, or military vehicles I HATE YOU!!!!! GET OFF MY ROAD!!!! :angry

 

Totally agree with you there.

Although I did see an Audi use its indicators yesterday.

OK it was at the exact same time he cut me up, slammed on the brakes to get off the A31 dual carriageway at the last minute and he had to get behind the 2 cars and a bike on my left. Obviously an A3 is an extremely long vehicle and would not fit in the 300m gap behind me.

 

Mike

[TooTallMike]

To those who argue that the MoT is valueless because it is only a snapshot I would say that at least that snapshot is being taken and it might mean defects are found before they become dangerous.

 

Once again, for some owners the MoT is the only time anyone 'mechanical' ever looks at their vehicle. The same probably applies to a lot of modern cars.

 

- MG

[paulob1]

To those who argue that the MoT is valueless because it is only a snapshot I would say that at least that snapshot is being taken and it might mean defects are found before they become dangerous.

 

Once again, for some owners the MoT is the only time anyone 'mechanical' ever looks at their vehicle. The same probably applies to a lot of modern cars.

 

- MG

 

non mechanical people have their cars fixed at garages.

Garages are looking for work

They will welcome the opportunity to tell owners that a few things are wrong with the car and need doing...we certainly would and do.

 

We do the mechanicals and electrics on old cars...we will now use the lack of an MOT to help us win more work...easy peasey, we are gong to offer a road safe check where we will cover the majority of the important issues.

 

the government test wont be needed....

[Tony B]

The rich collectors can employ minions so never get thier hands dirty. The rest of us spend a lot of time in the mud checking everything and panicking if the rattle appears, or disappears unexpectedly. :-D Listen to you vehicle, it will tell you if something is wrong!

[N.O.S.]

The rich collectors can employ minions so never get thier hands dirty. The rest of us spend a lot of time in the mud checking everything and panicking if the rattle appears, or disappears unexpectedly. :-D Listen to you vehicle, it will tell you if something is wrong!

 

But TTM's point is that not all of the rest of us do! Some seem reluctant to accept this reality, in which case there is little point debating it further......

 

And yes, the odd few ('cos as TTM says that's all it takes) may be the ones who spoil it for the rest of us.

[griff66]

you can take a horse to water ..........................:cool2:

[Mk3iain]

I still don't get it :???

 

It seems like the MOT is to mitigate against the possibility of maybe a minority "of other people not me", possibly not maintaining a historic military vehicle to a safe standard.

Like I said before, I fail to see that this has proven to be a national problem before now in the classic and vintage vehicle world in general.

Why should our hobby or other pre-sixty vehicle owners be any different?

Good intentions no doubt but there are other real problems out there......

[Richard Farrant]

I read the discussion papers when this was put out for consultation and statistics showed the pre-1960 vehicles by percentage, were having a far lower failure rate than later vehicles. This says something about how well classic vehicles are maintained. The heavier vehicles that were excused testing for many years, have not given cause for concern, with possibly the odd and rare exception, before it was pre-1960, it was pre-1940 and never heard of any problems. Lets face it, this is bringing into line with European practise apparantly, so what is the word over there?

[Tony B]

When you actually delve into the MOT, its suprisng how many things are either exempted or have special tets. Ambulance Class 4 regardless of weight is one example I know of. Opening windscreen, no wipers required, or washers, not folding, opening.

[N.O.S.]

Just a few of my own random thoughts (or talking scribble as they say!):

 

There are large untested mvs running around with potentially dangerous faults

No the scale of this doesn't seem to have been a problem to the movement to date

Yes there are small mvs running around with potentially dangerous faults despite the annual MOT

No the problem does not seem to be significant enough to cause concern

Yes there would no doubt be more small mvs with worrying faults when the MOT requirement is relaxed

I hope the numbers will not be significant enough to cause the movement as a whole problems

 

I wonder if we are perhaps inclined to be more critical when looking at other peoples' vehicles than when we inspect our own?

 

I simply cannot get my head around the often voiced idea that an MOT is a total waste of time, for either new or classic vehicles. Can you just imagine what state many post 1973 vehicles would be in if we abandoned MOTs altogether? :shocked:

 

Not all of us can be experts, and sometimes a little knowledge worse than none. But I reckon we all know people who are less concerned about vehicle safety and mechanical condition than ourselves - for how else can we judge our own standards?

 

I'm not convinced this particular E-petition will make any difference, but I applaud anyone prepared to jump off the fence and sign it. Let's hope EVERYONE in the hobby takes a responsible approach to operating vehicles without the legal requirement for an annual condition test.

 

I imagine the government is quite pleased to be able to find such a solution to the problem of how to apply consistent standards to older vehicle MOTs. Just imagine the cost of introducing a newer type of 'appropriate' MOT for older vehicles - far far more than any revenue which might be gained from it.

 

That's all. I've got to go and stick a bicycle puncture patch on a brake hose :n00b:

Edited June 26, 2012 by N.O.S.

[commander]

Ref your statement below where do you get your facts from or do you just think them up out of thin air

 

"There are large untested mvs running around with potentially dangerous faults"

 

over to you

Commander

[Marmite!!]

Ref your statement below where do you get your facts from or do you just think them up out of thin air

 

"There are large untested mvs running around with potentially dangerous faults"

 

over to you

Commander

 

I know of at least one heavy MV.. it actually hit me on two seperate occasions due to brake problems.. some people have neither the skill nor the will to keep their vehicles in order or rectify known faults (the Vehicle is no longer on the road). Some people will flout the rules whatever the legislation.

 

I know of serveral places you can get a "Sympathetic" MOT if needed.. those that don't maintain there vehicles would propably know of similar places anyway so the MOT wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on..

 

Just Google "Sympathetic MOT" & see how many are looking for one.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sympathetic+mot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

[cosrec]

Ref your statement below where do you get your facts from or do you just think them up out of thin air

 

"There are large untested mvs running around with potentially dangerous faults"

 

over to you

Commander

I will try and answer this one. Posters on this site have quoted examples of dangerous faults becoming apparent immediately after having MOTS. There fore logic dictates there must be large untested mvs running around with potentially dangerous faults agree ????. Also you can see i dont agree that because some vehicles slip through with dangerous faults it is a reason not having them but more so that we should have mots So the argument of vehicles getting through an mot with faults is harming this forums cause more than helping it

[cosrec]

That's all. I've got to go and stick a bicycle puncture patch on a brake hose :n00b:

 

I kid not over the years we have towed commercial vehicles vans in from various check pionts with faults like

Mole grips on front flex brake pipe (it was that perished he could not get a brake pedal with out it and this was his defence) this was a historic vehicle but a lot of years ago swerved across the road and hit a stationary car.

Skip loader had some welding done on it 38 self tappers screwed into plastic pipes to stop air leaks.

Butchers van ratchet strap holding rear axle forward and wooden block under bump stop Main and second leaf broken only got to go another 3 months and scrapping it when MOT runs out. Now to me this is a cross section of the general vehicle owning public and the mentality of a small percentage of them

i apologise if offend anyone on this forum but i dont believe you and all pre 60s vehicle owners are 100 percent perfect i know i arnt or have not been

[N.O.S.]

Ref your statement below where do you get your facts from or do you just think them up out of thin air

 

"There are large untested mvs running around with potentially dangerous faults"

 

over to you

Commander

 

Do you think I think them up out of thin air?

 

Well, allow me give you a very simple answer. I simply keep my eyes open at very large gatherings of mvs. And every now and then (and I mean very infrequently) I see something that worries me.

 

Do deliberately I set out to find such mvs? Of course not. I frequently see mvs that make me dream of being able to achieve similar standards of restoration quality and mechanical condition (or what can be see of it), and, just ever-so occasionally, I see one that makes me think ' Ooh, I hope the owner gets that fixed / replaced soon'.

 

Let me ask you what you see when you look around? A perfect world? I have absolutely no reason to believe that anyone who frequents this forum has a mv with potentially dangerous faults. And even if I did I don't believe in using a media such as this forum to 'out' specific vehicles and their owners. So you are welcome to either take my word for it without evidence, or dismiss it as 'thin air' rubbish.

 

As I said before, you can't have a sensible debate until you accept the situation. If you accept all my 'thin air' facts as something approaching reality you would deduce that, as others have suggested, there are historic vehicles around with potentially dangerous faults about but it hopefully is not enough of a problem to cause a safety concern over the use of historic vehicles. Presumably the government thinks this is the case or they would have another system in place.

 

But it seems even I don't bother taking on board what I write - if I did I would have taken heed of my first post on this thread and not bothered to enter the debate. In fact later on today I will probably pull my posts - that way you can all have a much more balanced discussion. Oh, and pease accept my apologies for attempting to present a realistic view.

Edited June 27, 2012 by N.O.S.

[Big ray]

A balanced debate can only be achieved if we work on the basis that all comments need to be backed by hard evidence of your claims, statistics please. I do agree that when you say that you occasionally see vehicles that in your opinion are unroadworthy / unsafe, of course that situation will arise, thats why we have failures on annual tests. We do need to make sure that all clubs take safety on board and appoint officers to oversee the enforcement of that particular post, I feel that we are more than capable of sustaining our somewhat untarnished image on that score, and if it was not the case that its been untarnished for so long, then I dont think that the government would have even considered this new legislation

SAFETY MUST ALWAYS BE PARAMOUNT.

[Mk3iain]

Do you think I think them up out of thin air?

 

Well, allow me give you a very simple answer. I simply keep my eyes open at very large gatherings of mvs. And every now and then (and I mean very infrequently) I see something that worries me.

 

Do deliberately I set out to find such mvs? Of course not. I frequently see mvs that make me dream of being able to achieve similar standards of restoration quality and mechanical condition (or what can be see of it), and, just ever-so occasionally, I see one that makes me think ' Ooh, I hope the owner gets that fixed / replaced soon'.

 

Let me ask you what you see when you look around? A perfect world? I have absolutely no reason to believe that anyone who frequents this forum has a mv with potentially dangerous faults. And even if I did I don't believe in using a media such as this forum to 'out' specific vehicles and their owners. So you are welcome to either take my word for it without evidence, or dismiss it as 'thin air' rubbish.

 

As I said before, you can't have a sensible debate until you accept the situation. If you accept all my 'thin air' facts as something approaching reality you would deduce that, as others have suggested, there are historic vehicles around with potentially dangerous faults about but it hopefully is not enough of a problem to cause a safety concern over the use of historic vehicles. Presumably the government thinks this is the case or they would have another system in place.

 

But it seems even I don't bother taking on board what I write - if I did I would have taken heed of my first post on this thread and not bothered to enter the debate. In fact later on today I will probably pull my posts - that way you can all have a much more balanced discussion. Oh, and pease accept my apologies for attempting to present a realistic view.

 

 

You started a reasonable and interesting debate and one in that will we will not all find agreement, that is life and what makes the forum useful. Please do not remove your posts!

There is for sure a segment of the road going public (and commercial users) who will bodge and dodge. It seems that the owners of vintage and classic vehicles show such a significantly low percentage of "offenders" that to test all is not seemed to be worth it. I do not think for one minute that all vintage and classics on the road are in perfect health but the owners will (should) be aware like the rest of us that they must be safe for road use at all times, good enough to pass a suitable MOT. We do have many VOSA and police spot checks on commercials in the NE Scotland and I have been pulled in with my M1008 and been given a going over (I passed with a recommendation to monitor my rear brake lines, I changed them). They can and will pull private vehicles too to check for condition, overloading (horse trailers a favorite) and proper license etc. The police and VOSA do not rely on the MOT anyway and check for themselves.

If I see anyone with a obviously unsafe vehicle I surely would let them know or inform the police, I would not want that on my conscience if it all went wrong and someone got hurt or killed!

End of drivel

Iain

[diamond-t-steve]

Just a thought, but I think that there could be a possible rise in insurance premiums very soon after the Mot rule change. Comments anyone?

[ArtistsRifles]

Just a thought, but I think that there could be a possible rise in insurance premiums very soon after the Mot rule change. Comments anyone?

 

They already had a massive hike this year - according to FJ it's because of the high numbers of both uninsured drivers who have had accidents (seems to me if they can't be a**ed to get insured they won't give a damn about other road users either..) and, to a lesser extent, the amount of ambulance chaser claims. If they go up much further the insurance companies will be pricing themselves out of business....

 

Back on topic. - I'm neither an MOT tester or mechanic so cannot comment on vehicles of any sort being unroadworthy other than to echo the observation that the MOT is only valid at that point in time, pull out of the station and a bulb blows - and instant failure to comply.....

All I can say is that if any of my MV's were out and someone saw a problem I had failed to spot I would be extremely grateful if it was pointed out so I could remedy it ASAP.