Lotus Elan

MOT Exemption Madness

PostPost by: William2 » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:43 pm

Sorry to resurrect a new thread on this topic but the more I think about it the more it concerns me. Apologies if any of my assumptions are incorrect.
I was thinking of a couple of scenarios in particular.
Firstly, what if an individual should come across a severely rusty old classic as a barn find and spends minimal time and effort on getting it running, then takes it out on public roads for a test drive or take it on a serious journey. You get where I'm coming from, any number of things could happen!
Second scenario, a classic car owner who uses their car as main mode of transport and may cover 5 - 15K miles per annum. If this individual is a competent engineer/mechanic this would be pretty safe. However, if that person was not that way inclined and didn't thing an annual MOT was necessary (or was cost saving) then again this could result in an unroadworthy car.
As someone has already pointed out, it only needs a couple of newspaper articles on classic car accidents caused by negligence to kick start a group lobbying against classic car use on public roads. You have to wonder what planet some of these politicians and civil servants are on.
I know it will fall on deaf ears, but rather than sit back and do nothing I will at least write a polite letter to either the DVLA or DOT. Any advice on which organisation to send it to or are they both responsible for this nonsensical decision?? The more people who send letters explaining their concerns the better.
William2
Fourth Gear
Fourth Gear
 
Posts: 947
Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Location: West Sussex

PostPost by: Davidb » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:53 pm

Here in Vancouver we had government safety testing of all cars until twenty (?) years ago and then the government ended the programme. There was a lot of talk of un-roadworthy cars causing mayhem on the roads of Western Canada but the truth is that it just hasn't happened. It may be that the values of older cars has risen and made them worth repairing? We have a very active classic car scene here-both English and everything else :roll:
'65 S2 4844
Davidb
Fourth Gear
Fourth Gear
 
Posts: 871
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPost by: JimE » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:45 pm

I wouldn't worry about it. The Government did it's research and there is a much greater risk of newer cars failing their MOT. Jim
JimE
Third Gear
Third Gear
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Location: London

PostPost by: 1owner69Elan » Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:09 pm

Echoing similar situation for California. We have smog checks but no safety checks. Pre 1975 and no smog checks either. You can be stopped if the police see a light out or such. But no check on brakes, chassis, suspension, etc. This was bit different 45 years ago, see the sticker on my car:

img_8414.jpg and



Here is what one person noted about inspections:

Vehicle inspections are a real consumer and driver annoyance, especially if you happen to be in line behind Jay Leno.

Let me repeat, the stupid safety inspections do nothing for safety, and annoy the heck out of voters, who will be happy to end the political career of any California politician stupid enough to try it. See Gray Davis. (Governor was recalled).

As for revenue, California has high enough taxes anyway.

Inspections every few year might make sense in states where rust is a problem because of salt on roads - New York, New Jersey etc. - where there can be hidden structural damage.


The only real requirement in California for a classic car is to have liability insurance. The rest is left to the vehicle owner.
You really don't hear any horror stories about mechanical failures in old cars causing accidents.
'69 Elan S4 SE
Street 181 BHP
Original owner
1owner69Elan
Fourth Gear
Fourth Gear
 
Posts: 824
Joined: 16 Jun 2015
Location: Napa, California

PostPost by: UAB807F » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:27 am

William2 wrote:(snipped quote)
I know it will fall on deaf ears, but rather than sit back and do nothing I will at least write a polite letter to either the DVLA or DOT. Any advice on which organisation to send it to or are they both responsible for this nonsensical decision?? The more people who send letters explaining their concerns the better.


I think you're wasting your energy, the time to send your comment was during the consultation period and anything now will be politely ignored. I can't recall where I read it (Classic Car, FBHVC ?) but the public consultation stats were listed and included clubs, professionals and IIRC about 2200 individuals as well as the usual Government departments which included MoT failure stats.

The public consensus was slightly towards keeping the MoT and this was balanced by Govt. research which showed that there had not been an increase in pre-1960 vehicle accidents since they were removed from the MoT requirement.

Data from other countries (and seemingly the response on this thread so far) led to the conclusion was that removing MoT status from the Historic Vehicle class was unlikely to increase accidents where mechanical failure is the prime cause.

So that's it. In response to the public who wished to retain MoT status, the legislation is drafted to say that an individual can still submit their car for an MoT if they wish. I was surprised at the outcome because cynically I thought that any government wouldn't refuse even a small tax take, but they have. I think they may backtrack on the "15% power increase" aspect because that'll be incredibly hard to enforce but I think the basic legislation is going through as is.

Brian
User avatar
UAB807F
Fourth Gear
Fourth Gear
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPost by: Elanconvert » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:11 am

if you apply the OP's logic to driver age for example, who would be in favour of driving tests for the over 70's?
at the moment it is up to drivers to self certify/regulate.........clearly it is open to the elderly to submit themselves for a test but how many do?
it seems to be a question of trusting citizens to have a large degree of common sense and responsibility rather than legislating for every aspect of their lives.....oh dear... that sounds a bit political!! :lol:

:D fred :D
'Never give up!....unless it's hopeless.....'

1970 S4 dhc big valve
1973 Ginetta G15
1967 Ginetta G4 [sadly now sold]
1959 lotus elite type 14
Elanconvert
Third Gear
Third Gear
 
Posts: 429
Joined: 26 Jul 2013
Location: Sunny Devon, United Kingdom

PostPost by: prezoom » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:22 pm

I for one, have never seen a CHP window sticker in all the years I have been driving in California. The only time the CHP was involved in inspecting any of my cars, was when I finished assembling my S7 kit back in 1965, and no sticker was issued. The inspection only involved making sure the vehicle had all the required items needed to be licensed in the state. Two beam headlights, side lights, brake lights, turn signals, horn, windshield and wipers and a parking brake. Can't remember if seat belts were mandatory then, but the car had them. No mechanical inspection was performed. Took all of about 10 minutes at the DMV office, to which the officer signed off on the required paper work, permitting me to obtain a license for the vehicle. The insurance issue was taken care of in the office. The only vehicle verification inspection I have had since, was when I brought in a vehicle from out of state. It being a commercial vehicle, required a certified weight receipt, and VIN verification was the only other requirement. The VIN verification was taken care of by my local AAA office.
Rob Walker
26-4889
50-0315N
1964 Sabra GT
1964 Elva Mk4T Coupe (awaiting restoration)
1965 Ford Falcon Ranchero, 302,AOD,9",rack and pinion,disc,etc,etc,etc
1954 Nash Healey LeMans Coupe

Owning a Lotus will get you off the couch
prezoom
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Location: Escondido, California

PostPost by: JimE » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:28 pm

My last Elan MOT was today. Jim
Attachments
img_0945.jpg and
JimE
Third Gear
Third Gear
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Location: London

PostPost by: JonB » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:08 pm

Despite a classic car having no mandatory MOT, it does say on the DVLA web site that the owner is still responsible for it being legally roadworthy. I think being able to volunteer a classic car for an MOT is a good compromise, as those owners who do not know how to maintain a car can still get a test. If the car subsequently fails it must be repaired by law because it is proven unroadworthy.
User avatar
JonB
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Location: South Coast, UK

PostPost by: Grizzly » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:15 pm

For me personally i'm still going to have my cars MOT'd compulsory or not (it's good to have a second set of eyes look it over)

As for no MOT's...... it makes no sense to me that you could go buy a barn find car thats sat for 40 years, stick some fresh fuel in it and drive it!! thats madness....... Yes it's upto the owner to keep it road worthy but one mans fix is another's bodge..... Where is the regulation?? do these cars get driven on the road until they fail or the Police spots it? seems like a big gamble to me.
Chris
User avatar
Grizzly
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Location: Cheshire/UK

PostPost by: Craven » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:17 pm

At present in the UK, a vehicle is required to have a V5c registration document before being issued with a Road Fund Licence, free or otherwise.
This document will only be issued if a current MOT certificate is provided, as the MOT tester has to establish the vehicle identity, VIN details match the vehicle being tested.
I assume this practice will continue with regard ? Barn Finds ? or vehicles without V5c status.
FWIW.
Craven
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: 14 Sep 2013
Location: south coast uk

Total Online:

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests