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

[Big ray]

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?

 

I would certainly not be surprised if insurance was in some way related to undergoing a voluntary M-o-T to retain your current premium, or applying a levy if not........ its a no win situation really (Financially) Perhaps some enterprising garages will come up with a basic test at a reasonable cost, brakes, lights and steering for example. This would be similar to the original ten year test when it was originally introduced.

[Big ray]

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.

 

Absolutely, and so would I.

[Big ray]

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!

 

 

I agree, my sentiments exactly.

[mike65]

Statistics on MOT's are readily available.

All you need to do is Google "MOT Failure statistics"

http://good-garage-guide.honestjohn.co.uk/mot-results/

Have not found the pass rate for 1960 but some of the newer ones are quite interesting.

An average 20% failure for 3 year old vehicles, Some models with a 30% + rate. wonder how many would have failed at 1 year old?

 

Mike

[TooTallMike]

non mechanical people have their cars fixed at garages.

Only if they realise there are problems that need looking at.

- MG

[TooTallMike]

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

If anyone wants some frightening examples of this they are welcome to PM me, but I am not putting anything on public forum.

- MG

[private mw]

i drive an hgv for a living and have to do walk round daily checks every morning its the law ! and yes i see vosa nearly everyday patrolling the M1 near jnct 30 -36 and yes they will pull you off the motorway or nearest services and climb over and under your vehicle the lorry goes for inspection every 6 weeks and yes if they want to find something they will ! so a 1 year inspection mot means nothing really you yourself should check your vehicle and when you own and drive it daily you should know its faults really ! :undecided:

[timbo]

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.

 

Im sure i heard something the other week that said that the increasing prevalence of whiplash claims was a major cause of insurance rises. Also repair costs must have something to do with it - a colleague recently had her car repaired following flood damage and it took 6 weeks - their attitude was dont worry about it you have a hire car and the insurance will pay and will also pay our storage fees...

[.303fan]

in holland, vehicles ages 30 gets a mot every two years. we use it, and use it hard. it also goes with wheels off and drum check every two months chassisbush and spring bush checks monthly same for the schocks . tires and lights dalty, same as the brake test like i do when i am driving a lorry. we keep clutch and brake parts in stock for every vehicle, and it's being loved. i can understand that not everyone does that, but if a vehicle aint in a good shape to be on the road, the driver should be shot. mot is just one step up from scrap. if you is unshure about your vehicle, have it tested yearly. i just discovered two soft spots in the chassis, the vehicle is in the workshop awaiting welding.

[commander]

I see a lot of modern vehicles that to be honest should not be on the road i.e. bald tyres, worn brakes, and tin worm

and these are on vehicles with an MOT if the owner/driver cannot be bothered to check on his daily vehicle he will not

on his historic vehicle no matter what we say these type just don't give a toss and at any MVT event it is the duty of the

MVT safety officer on site to check any vehicle that may cause concern I am sure we have all had the gremlins strike when

you are out and about and it is usually the thing that you think is ok when you set out all you can do is like we have to do

every time we take a truck out walk around it and do a visual check it will only take 5 mins but could pick up a problem

before it becomes serious

Commander

[ArtistsRifles]

It was the practice in the forces to carry out first parade, halt and last parade service checks on the vehicle you were responsible for. First parade was checking oils and coolant levels, lights, tyre pressures and condition plus a visual check for damage and leaks, halt was a visual check to make sure nothing had come amiss and last parade was as the first - after allowing a cool down period.

 

Even these were not fool proof as on at least one occasion I pulled into a resupply point to be bawled out by a rupert for having a loose rope on the load bed. It was OK on the last halt visually, no fraying etc but had snapped between then and arriving. It was threaded through the handles of the top layer of jerry cans in the back of a GS Militant and we could only assume it got trapped/pinched going off-road and cut.

 

Nonetheless I try to follow the same procedures on my vehicles now whenever possible.

[paulob1]

I guess we all have stories of near misses, a wheel fell of my car the other day the day after the MOT test, nothing is fool proof. if you think all of these dieas through cars are dangerous full stop..moving is dangerous, standing still is dangerous...my riley failed its last MOT because the washer was not producing enough water...oh and the front offside brake was leaking brake fluid, working but leaking, we could see that oursleves and it has been replaced...my ural would fail its MOT unitl todays as we could never get water out of the jets in sufficient quantity...now with electric motor...

 

we can go on and on, i know this guy who...etc and I KNOW THIS GUY WHO ...ETC ETC ETC No to MOT for pre 60's cars is right...it should also be like that for military vehicles not used commercially ad doing a limited mileage...ridiculous to treat my DAF doing say 1000 miles a year the same as the DAF doing 200,000 miles a year...

 

anyway no to MOT's

[N.O.S.]

But on the other hand ..............:cool2:

 

some potentially serious faults with very infrequently used older vehicles may not manifest themselves if the vehicle was used little but much more frequently. For example a vehicle worked hard daily is unlikely to suffer the hydraulic brake problems inherent with '4 times a year' wagons.

[Degsy]

If we are all so perfect why are you all so afraid of an MOT? I have had trucks in the past which were exempt but certainly would not have objected to an annual test. The fact that it can develop a fault immediately after the test is irrelevant as we are usually talking about a bulb failure or something equally minor but if the test is conducted properly but allowing for the age of the vehicle then faults will be picked up some of which could be potentially lethal.

[private mw]

i used to own and drive old classic fire engines all tax and MOT exempt because the log books said fire engine on them and they where still capable of fighting fires same category as green godesses ect ! plus i know of local companies not farmers that use jcb fastracs for pulling roll on / skip loaders and plant + whale tankers for carrying trade effluent these are mot exempt will reach speeds of over 40mph easily and drivers with no hgv licence because they are classed as a tractor but the size of them would easily go over a small car ! same as i said in previous posts safety is paramount but why tread on your own toes as long as YOU make sure your vehicles safe why cackle on ! :sweat:

[Degsy]

i used to own and drive old classic fire engines all tax and MOT exempt because the log books said fire engine on them and they where still capable of fighting fires same category as green godesses ect ! plus i know of local companies not farmers that use jcb fastracs for pulling roll on / skip loaders and plant + whale tankers for carrying trade effluent these are mot exempt will reach speeds of over 40mph easily and drivers with no hgv licence because they are classed as a tractor but the size of them would easily go over a small car ! same as i said in previous posts safety is paramount but why tread on your own toes as long as YOU make sure your vehicles safe why cackle on ! :sweat:

 

 

I'm well aware of the loophole that allows Fastracs and other large tractors to be used in this way but I fail to see what it has to do with this thread.

[Richard Farrant]

i used to own and drive old classic fire engines all tax and MOT exempt because the log books said fire engine on them and they where still capable of fighting fires same category as green godesses ect !

 

same as i said in previous posts safety is paramount but why tread on your own toes as long as YOU make sure your vehicles safe why cackle on ! :sweat:

 

Hi mate,

 

You have some good points here, especially the last one. Instead of people coming up with negative posts, it would be a good idea to work out a way of vehicles being checked if the owners feel they are not experienced enough to do it themselves. The announcement of the tests not being required after November, did point out the voluntary tests could still be had. We should be educating owners to make sure they have their vehicles checked by competant persons on a regular basis, but without the beaurocracy.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Richard Farrant

[private mw]

running with no MOT and making £££££s pounds we as mv owners classic cars spend lots of time in garages laid under or rebuilding our pride and joy spendind £££££ pounds on keeping it road worthy !

[private mw]

and i will be attending the W&P show to view your pride and joys and admire the work you put into them ! not wearing overalls and a small hammer in hand for checking your wheel nuts , lets enjoy this hobby we all share and stop dragging it down ! :nono:

[N.O.S.]

and i will be attending the W&P show to view your pride and joys and admire the work you put into them ! not wearing overalls and a small hammer in hand for checking your wheel nuts , lets enjoy this hobby we all share and stop dragging it down ! :nono:

 

:rofl::thumbsup:

 

Oh, it only went a bit negative as it was struggling for traction through the denial stage. As KEWELDE says perhaps it can get more constructive now it seems to be accepted that some guidance would be beneficial - even if only to a few.

[Big ray]

Unfortunately lots of people get killed or maimed every day on our roads by perfectly well maintained vehicles......... its the driver. We should pay more attention to the drivers suitability to be on the public highway rather than just the vehicle.

[paulob1]

Unfortunately lots of people get killed or maimed every day on our roads by perfectly well maintained vehicles......... its the driver. We should pay more attention to the drivers suitability to be on the public highway rather than just the vehicle.

 

Driver gets one MOT throughout his life time, now tell me that is sensible...if reducing accidents was the real aim of VOSA and DVLA and the government then we should have five year driver refresher courses. not tests but refresher courses where people go through the basics again and some of the changes that have occured during that five year period...in my opinion this would reduce deaths on our roads a thousand times better than the MOT test..which I doubt saves anyones lives.

 

my garage will check a car over for people, and we do spot all the issues the MOT does, but we are then in danger of being accused of making up problems for work...because our business is word of mouth we are well trusted and people come back to us time and time again...we have just finishe a 30's topolino for a lady and fixed my riley, ooh just remembered I have a fuel leak on the riley, and it passed its mot last week, they didnt see the fuel leak...I will get the fuel leak fixed not because it would fail its MOT but becasue it has a fuel leak.

[paulob1]

I am amazed that anyone votes 'for' the petition but then I am amazed that people think any law is sensible....we are supposedly modern civilised people and yet we have more rules and regulations in this country than virtually anywhere else in the world...it is non sensical that we need to be fined 30 pounds for riding bikes on the pavement, its non sensical that you can be fined for your employee falling on the snow because you didnt put up signs saying 'take care snow'...its ludicrous that lawyers fight cases for compensation when in reality there was no whiplash or loss to the people involved...we have a ludicrous system perpetuated by those who think the Law will protect them, and those that know it will just keep them in a living, which it does. However when some one murders someone the law has failed, when someone has an accident the law has failed, the revenge attitude of the law is foolish and pointless...it does nothing but generate angst and animosity. i agree we dont need a lawlass society as some will always want to err on the wrong side of decent no matter what the good people do but come on...more laws we dont need any more laws...any reduction has to be applauded.

Edited June 29, 2012 by paulob1

[mike65]

I am really enjoying reading this and peoples opinions, some I agree others not.

If an MOT is the sole way of saying a car is roadworthy - something is wrong.

If somebody thinks a car is roadworthy because it passed an MOT 11 months ago (or yesterday) something is wrong.

 

You are responsible for ensuring your vehicle is roadworthy and safe.

A vehicle is the most deadly thing most people come into contact with, yet they seem to think it is safe.

Cars are safe but motorbikes are mobile coffins and are villified.

Road deaths went up last year but the actual number of motorcycle deaths actually fell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623072

I suspect most of these (and accidents) are down to un-roadworthy drivers rather than the actual vehicle.

 

I have a Land Rover and an Astra, if I detect a fault I fix the Land Rover, the Astra goes to the garage for most things as it has too much electronics in it. Oh it has done 49K in 12 years, yet I know of vehicles that have doubled taht and still do not need an MOT and have not had a service as the little light that says service me has not come on.

 

The only real answer is to educate the driver. The driving test should include things like cheking oil, topping up washer fluid and even opening the bonnet. Know people who cannot even do that. Even how to use a fuel pump and check tyre pressures. Other thing I have had to help people with.

 

Mike

[gritineye]

I am really enjoying reading this and peoples opinions, some I agree others not.

If an MOT is the sole way of saying a car is roadworthy - something is wrong.

If somebody thinks a car is roadworthy because it passed an MOT 11 months ago (or yesterday) something is wrong.

 

You are responsible for ensuring your vehicle is roadworthy and safe.

A vehicle is the most deadly thing most people come into contact with, yet they seem to think it is safe.

Cars are safe but motorbikes are mobile coffins and are villified.

Road deaths went up last year but the actual number of motorcycle deaths actually fell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623072

I suspect most of these (and accidents) are down to un-roadworthy drivers rather than the actual vehicle.

 

I have a Land Rover and an Astra, if I detect a fault I fix the Land Rover, the Astra goes to the garage for most things as it has too much electronics in it. Oh it has done 49K in 12 years, yet I know of vehicles that have doubled taht and still do not need an MOT and have not had a service as the little light that says service me has not come on.

 

The only real answer is to educate the driver. The driving test should include things like cheking oil, topping up washer fluid and even opening the bonnet. Know people who cannot even do that. Even how to use a fuel pump and check tyre pressures. Other thing I have had to help people with.

 

Mike

 

You have summed my thoughts on this subject almost exactly Mike, thanks for saving me the brain ache putting it into words..:thumbsup:..where's that Like Button???