Tax and MOT exempt for 40 year old + vehicles

[upkeep]

New V5, put the part from the old V5 somewhere safe 

[rhyds]

Oct 8, 2017 16:52:33 GMT 1 upkeep said:

New V5, put the part from the old V5 somewhere safe 

I'd imagine the DVLA would have spotted the change of ownership when the new V5 was generated, and sent out the red letter before your new V5 arrived

[sorted]

So I see the MOT exemption kicks in from May 18, and as the Stag's current MOT expires 2 June it's had its last one unless I choose to submit it for one (which I would if I were to sell)

Not sure I agree with it though - they might be better looked after in general but I still think its too easy to miss something that has got too old / perished / rusty / seized and with no modern warning systems to give you a clue, the first the owner knows could be when it hits the wall. I give mine a thorough pre-MOT each year - its never failed yet - and will continue to do so. But not all owners will have the knowledge / will to do that in my opinion. Too easy to assume that because it only did a couple of thousand miles last year it must still be fine.

[eddypeck]

I totally agree, I always give my cars a reasonable inspection before it goes in for an MOT to give me the best chance of a pass. But silly things like my Beetle, last year failed on unequal braking at the rear. It stopped in a straight line, as well as a Beetle stops anyway, so there was no indication that the brakes weren't acting equally together. It was only when put onto the fancy test gear that it got an unbalance value and was therefore adjusted. It's easy to dismiss the crap brakes of a 40+ year old car as being that's how they are... but in truth there was room for improvement. Yes, still crap but slightly less crap than they could have been.

Without a post life many competent home enthusiasts may still miss that corroded brake line up behind the rear axle, or that worn steering union, etc.

It's total nonsense. 

I don't know why they didn't make a 'historic' MOT to go along with the Historic Status, just a compulsory annual (or even bi-annual) safety check - basically an MOT how it used to be in 1980 without the probes and sensors. Oh, and make it £25 instead of £50 - I give up with the twats running this country. Funny, my daughter even suggested this morning we sell up and move abroad.

[valhalla]

Oct 25, 2017 15:33:58 GMT 1 eddypeck said:

I don't know why they didn't make a 'historic' MOT to go along with the Historic Status, just a compulsory annual (or even bi-annual) safety check - basically an MOT how it used to be in 1980 without the probes and sensors. Oh, and make it £25 instead of £50

That's a sensible idea. I don't know why they didn't just think of it themselves. I guess the problem is, the bits that take the longest (and need charging-for) are still there on an "old" MoT, like the brake test and underbody inspection. So you might still need a fee of around £50 to cover the time at the MoT station.

[eddypeck]

In case anyone is interested here's the official finding.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest


They actually make some valid points, classic vehicles account for around 1% off traffic and death on the roads related to unsafe vehicles are only around 3%...
Also the MOT failure rate on newer vehicles was higher than older vehicles, I guess due to neglect and ignorance as owners of newer cars don't expect them to fail.


It actually states:

TRL estimated in 2011 that just 3% of road casualties could be associated with vehicle

defects. The effect of MOTs on the rate of vehicle defects contributing to crashes

amongst these older vehicles is difficult to assess. Our conclusion is there could be a

small negative effect on road safety. The impact assessment uses an estimate of close

to two serious injuries per year. However there is no specific evidence that not testing

vehicles of historic interest will lead to a safety risk materialising. It is important to note

that the method used to make the prediction uses a relatively simple approach and

there are a number of confounding factors, not least that other events could trigger a

repair or replacement part to be fitted before the MOT date.

So to summaries, by allowing a load of old unsafe cars and bikes on the road the amount of people that are going to die from it is negligible, It's apparently acceptable that 2 extra people can die!

.... so that's OK then 

[valhalla]

If the two people that die are the owners, then that could be considered a good thing from a Darwinian point of view. It means, also, that the overall standard of classic cars on the road will improve with immediate effect.

Note, of course, that I am applying the same cold statistical approach to this problem as the TRL......

In my own small circle of classic car clubs, I am heartened to see that the standard of approach to the engineering on the Rovers - the understanding of original design faults, and how to work around them - is improving year on year. I think that one or two of these models are better understood than modern cars, to the point that if one was to follow the club-guidance on offer for almost anything to do with maintenance or repairs, then it would be highly unlikely anything would go wrong drastically.