NO MORE MOT's?

[David Kemp]

Here in Qld australia, there is no yearly inspection, so long as the car's registration is kept current.
According to motoring boffins, our cars are in no more accidents (due to mechanical faults) than our neighbours in NSW, who do have annual inspections(for cars over 5 years old). The theory being us banana benders, service our cars when due, whereas those south of the Tweed river only repair their cars when inspection is due. Having lived in both states this theory works with my personal case. I am stunned that NZ still has 6 month WOF! This may have been useful when the average car in NZ was thirty years old, but now most NZ cars could easily survive a year without repair surely?

[Keith Andrews]

but now most NZ cars could easily survive a year without repair surely?

Nope, fraid not.
Replace say a cv joint or a bearing with a chinese one, 6 months later chances are it will fail WoF
A new car in NZ has a 12 month for the 1st few yrs then after that 6month
Also realise that NZ does have , on world stds rather an older natioal fleet.Im rather more versed in the NZ WoF stds than most, and see on almost a daily basis cars of all generations being examined.
On more modern cars say 3 yrs old it is things like light bulbs, wipers etc....many of these are owned by retired people including widows etc.
Over that it becomes CVs bearings, brake shoes, bearings, suspension bushes...and so often once up on a hoist it becomes very apparent damage by running over rocks curbs, tyre bulges , below min tread....and illegal snow tyres , even worse snow tyres miss matched with non snow, biased tyres on wrong side...and list goes on and on.
Getting older still we have rust, structual rust that so often is not oviously apparent... fading brakes, seat belts in secure/ fraide, insecure seat mountings etc

our cars are in no more accidents (due to mechanical faults) than our neighbours in NSW,

Be interesting to know the source of those stats and how they come about, ie crash siene investagtion because NZ stats, without looking up are in the ball park of something like crashes caused by mechanicval failure causing injury or death around 80% have no WoF and have contubuted to the accident....
Just because someone goes thru a read light and someone dies, doesnt mean running the red light caused the death...It conturbited to the death... the cause of death can often be put back to a failed seat, fialed seat belt, structual collaspe because of rust in a A pillar, poor repair, suaspension collaspe etc

[David Kemp]

Is the NZ problem possibly due to the fact most New cars to the country , are second hand Japanese cars already off the road in Japan?

[Forumadmin]

In the UK a new car has its first test after 3 years. My (new) car has service every 12000 miles and since I do less than 5000 miles in it, the computer tells me to service it because a year has elapsed. Allegedly it knows that a lot of short journeys require more frequent servicing.

[george garside]

I would not see any major problem wih pre '60n cars not requiring an MOT because owners fall into one of four catagaories

- those who have little or no machaanical knowledge or skills but who often spend a lot of money purchasing a fully restored vehicle anad having done so are happy to pay a marque specialist to maintain it.

- those who have considerable machanical abaility and for whom a major part of the 'hobby' is constantly fettling everything

- either of the above plus ' investors' who rarely go anywhere in their steeds prefering to polish and admire or hide away in the hope of financial gain. This may include those who take vehicles to 'shows' on trailers for fear of getting them dirty underneath!

- The small number who run pre 1960 cars as there only vehicle. Those in this group who do not maintain their cars properly will become extinct in due course as lack of maintainece will bring about the death of their mounts. Those who do proper maintainence ( & all pre 60' vehis=cles aare 'high maintenence) will either continue to drive safe cars or will gradually move into the other catagories outlined above as they move to more modern (& motable) cars that require less servicing and which have better spares availablity)

I don't know but assume that statistically the amount of accidents caused by mechanically faulty pre 60 vehicles must be a minute proportion of all road accidents.

george



-

[ian Howell]

I feel that generally, George is right, but as he says: -

(there are) those who have considerable machanical abaility and for whom a major part of the 'hobby' is constantly fettling everything.

That includes me and I would still very much welcome a second opinion after any major surgery or prolonged 'rest'' probably after the winter hibernation. To err is human but in this case could be fatal to either the vehicle, its owner or any passing third party!"

Anyway, we are where we are and we will find out soon enough if there is in fact a hidden agenda, but it may not be the government's. The insurers seem to be very quiet on this subject.

Any formal word from FJ?

[Keith Andrews]

I feel that generally, George is right,

So do I ...except there are many who by a 'pig' and dont know ...and many who .."if the wheels turn, paint looks good who cares..."
And going on the number of enthusitis car that go thru the workshop, from old jags, chevs, minis austens, mercs etc, even thu owners are meant to be savy, the only think they are till a king pin/wheel bearing is picked up because they dont know how to check thesecorrectly...yep they can fix but check...., and the rest dont check till the wheel bearing start to rumble and can be heard in the car.
That is reality from the testing piont of veiw.

But then cant clubs take some responabity? Take a rod on a offical club run and it has to be legal... not just a MoT or WoF sticker.. but meet those standards.
And this responsabity is not to the club , the member or the car but to the other public that they share our roads with...
And to be seen to take responabity...

I don't know but assume that statistically the amount of accidents caused by mechanically faulty pre 60 vehicles must be a minute proportion of all road accidents.

yes it would be and even then how many of those because it fell off the jack
Yep stats can be made to say anything..."like pre 60s have minute % of all accidents less than faults of a new cars"
That doesnt excuse cars not being up to scratch, and doesnt consol the mother who has lost her son due to poor maintance of an old "dangerous" car on the 7 oclock news

When the Government was going to change the regs on modifications, home built cars etc in NZ...all the interested car club parties got together lobbied ........with a very satisfactory soln.
What are the car clubs/organisations in the UK doing?

[Keith Andrews]

Is the NZ problem possibly due to the fact most New cars to the country , are second hand Japanese cars already off the road in Japan?

yes and no.. the cars imported must meet strict standards of inspection before being vined and regist.
And in most cases very low milage...Japan is not exactly aplace where one tends to run up high milage...
But these like new cars do eventually do the miles.

[george garside]

there is a letter in todays Times about pre '60 MOT's . I am not impressed so have written a reply - doubt if they will publish it!

george

[ian Howell]

George: -

We are not all Times readers anyway! What DID you say - was it not printable?!

[ian Howell]

Has anyone yet tried to 'tax' (all Jowetts are exempt of course) their Jowett without a current MoT?

I am tempted, but I really DO intend to get an MoT even though it is no longer (apparently?) required.

[Keith Clements]

I always do it on-line, so assume (probably incorrectly) the system knows. As for the paper forms and the Post Office catching up, now ther is a challenge for our paper pushers!

[Peter Holden]

Following the FBHVC AGM in October there was talk of one insurance company considering, all though not confirmed, that they were going to insist on an MOT otherwise they would not insure your car. I assume it would be added within the small print of your policy. Which of course we all check very carefully, don’t we!!

OK, so now we do not need an MOT, which I do not agree with, but I would recommend you check your insurance. Knowing insurance companies, if they can find a way of not paying out they will do.

Personally I think all vehicles on the road should have a current MOT, and I will continue to do so. I think the government have made a major mistake by relaxing the requirement for the historic vehicle. I believe they should have adapted the computer system to cope with older vehicles enabling MOT garages to have a greater flexibility in testing older vehicles.

But then we will not be conforming to the EEC rules.

[Keith Clements]

I talked with the FBHVC at their NEC stand and they were very helpful on both this subject and the other question I posed which was ethanol in petrol.

The real problem with insurance is that even if the policy small print says you need an MOT and you have one, you still have a responsibility to keep your car in roadworthy condition. This opens up a route that any insurer might use to get out of paying. I do not know if there are any examples or case law around; but I think if you were on a tyre that was below the legal tread limit that would constitute a valid case not to pay out. Other examples such as lack of brake fluid would be difficult to prove as driver negligence, especially as most Jowetts are not fitted with an indicator. (My Javelin is!)

Other likely faults that might cause a crash should be scrutinized. Worn steering ball joints, uneven braking, cracked wheels, cracked rear suspension arms and cracked track rods would be next on my list. Although the latter would not be picked up in an MOT.

You would then perhaps add to the list worn windscreen wipers, malfunctioning demisting system, dim lights and oxided reflectors.

Being even more drachonian would an insurance company refuse to pay out for personal injury if seat belts and air bags were not fitted?

[Tony Fearn]

Following the FBHVC AGM in October there was talk of one insurance company considering, all though not confirmed, that they were going to insist on an MOT otherwise they would not insure your car............. but I would recommend you check your insurance.

After reading the above from Peter I emailed my Jowett insurers - Footman James - at 8pm last night. This morning I received a reply by 11am. Good service, or what!

This is what they said about my two pre-war Jowetts:-

Dear Mr Fearn,
Thank you for your email. We confirm that if your vehicle is exempt from having to have an MOT by law you are not required to have one for insurance purposes.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
Ann
Footman James Enquiries
Aon UK Limited | Footman James
Direct: 0843 357 1918
Email: enquiries@footmanjames.co.uk
Website: http://www.footmanjames.co.uk

Tony.