JowettTalk

During a visit last Friday to Roger Learmonth's Bradford - and the rest of his amazing collection - he gave me a copy of a Government consultation document inviting responses to the proposal to exempt pre-1960 manufactured vehicles from the statutory MoT test, giving a start date of November 3rd, and a finish date of January 26th 2012 for the consultation.

There are three alternative proposals, based on different cut-off dates, but the preferred option is 1st January 1960, as this would bring cars and motorcycles into line with historic commercial vehicles. The new arrangement would come into effect in June 2012.

Whilst this might at first appear to be good news, am I alone in thinking: -

It might give an opportunity to also restrict the use of such vehicles, e.g. to so many days per annum as in Australia.

For insurers to require alternative evidence of roadworthiness - from what source and at what cost?

For insurers to once again inflate their premiums to cover the perceived increased liability risk.

For unsafe vehicles to be allowed on the roads again. It would not take many incidents for the whole scheme to be called into question.

These are just a few of my immediate reactions. I appreciate that owners with collections of historic vehicles would welcome the financial savings by not having to have them examined yearly when they may have covered only a very limited mileage in the interim, and that for most owners/drivers this appears to be welcome news, but personally I have always welcomed the 'second opinion' of a qualified and trusted MoT examiner on all vehicles I have owned. (My company cars of course were generally newish).

I am surprised that this does not seem to have attracted much attention in the historic motoring press either. One might think it has been 'sprung' on an unsuspecting public and that the 'consultation' is only to meet statutory requirements.

Has the club had any indications from insurers (e.g Footman James?).

The document is available on http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-27

Has anyone else got a view?

There might be other reasons and pressure from within the garage trade as it is now quite difficult to find testers that have the equipment or know about the older cars. I think the only thing that really is useful is the steering check. Most other things should be obvious to most older car drivers. Late 1950s cars are just about MOTable as generally they have most of the same specifications and fitments. Prior to that and lights, brakes and even steering would not suit modern driver requirements or specifications.
I must admit a view from underneath the car on the ramp can be revealing of oil leaks, impending rust problems or suspension rubbers on their way out. It is better than crawling under the car every year.
I can certainly see restrictions on mileage occuring and perhaps some way of verifying that, if you are stopped or have an accident. Jack and I were talking this week about also stopping car tax with perhaps the government collecting it from the insurance company.
Western Australia requires cars to be checked by the local car club for roadworthiness in order for the classic plates to be issued. This has the advantage that Classic Car clubs have a 'raison d'etre' and so they have organised communal facilities and spares holdings. The most likely is we will follow Europe and impose restrictions on night driving, motorway driving or, worse, have to be going to a declared event.

Personally I agree with the MOT. For all vehicles. It was originally introduced to make roads safer because there were a lot of very poorly maintained cars on the roads in the 1960‘s

If we stop MOT’s for older cars I would be concerned where the catch is. You can bet your big end that there is one! I am sure, perhaps not straight away, but it will come back and bite us. Just think of all the restrictions that could be imposed and it would all be done in the interests of road safety! Sooner or late under the safety banner we could be forced of the road. It would only take one serious accident where one older car was seen to be defective and there would be a public outcry to get us of the road. The fact that the accident was caused by the modern car driver’s incompetence could be lost in the media hype.

I think the MOT could be simplified and made cheaper for older cars. Perhaps a range of rates in line with the type, age or performance of individual cars.

The FBHVC who represent all of us, not just the JCC, but all historic vehicle users is currently doing a survey before submitting comments to the Dft.

Do not forget the FBHVC is there to ‘uphold the freedom’

I would suggest you support them and respond to the survey her is the link https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FBHVCMoT

I agree that exempting older vehicles from MOT could lead to restrictions on use and that some sort of independent check on raodworthyness is not a bad thing . This is perhaps more relevent to 60's + 'classics' that I think are more likely to be owned by non mechanical experts or at least by many with less expertise than is rquired to keep a pre war or early post war car up and running safely.

A fair compromise could be to relate the mot on ,say, pre 1960 ( or whatever) vehicles to either something like 3 yearly or 'administratively more complicated 'relate it to mileage , say every 3 or 5000 miles. That way the many cars , often part of collections, that do a very limited mileage would be mot'd less often whilst any in daily use would cop for it probably on an annual basis. It couold also be arranged that owners doing normal everyday mileage of eg 12000 or so a year could opt for the normal annual test not related to mileage.

george

in switzerland the mot is for oldtimer and youngtimer every 6 years -
the car have to be spottless!!!
if not every 3 years.
the tester will allways be a older tester not a young elektronic chap!!
for all cars :
little bit oil is ok, but not a pissing cane....breaks have to be good and even sided... no rust on the frame ... steering clear and strait ...schockabsorber - working ....engine - running without problems ...gear - clean and shifting have to be smooth ....light- all have to be perfect ....
the mot give me a saver drive !!!!!!!
peter

The Consultation does offer three alternative 'start' dates: - 1920, 1945 and 1960.

Perhaps the 1945 option would suit George's ideas. To my mind pre-war cars like Austin Sevens seem to have a vastly different lifestyle to the likes of Ford Escorts, MGs and their ilk.

Another option might be for owners of all relevant vehicles to be able to opt in or opt out of the MoT test. Those opting in could enjoy normal motoring whilst those opting out might have a mileage or road class limit.

I am pleased to see a strong response and I hope the Club's response to FBHVC and FBHVC's response to the Consultation will also appear here.

I suppose it is just coincidence that the Consultation comes at this very busy time of the year.

In an increasingly litigous culture (that I don't agree with, but that is where we are) it gives me some reassurance that my car has been inspected by an "expert" that I can refer back to if there were ever an accident. It is only a point in time, and anything could happen between MOT and accident, however it is a good indicator of a car being in good working order if it at least has an MOT.

I think the sensible option is to change the requirements for pre-1945 cars. However there is a downside. My acceptable level of risk is different to yours, is different to the next person. What I may consider to be safe may in fact not be safe at all - and the question is also whether I have the knowledge to be able to determine that. I have seen some cars on the road 11 months after an MOT that shouldn't be anywhere near a quiet lane, let alone driving down a dual carriageway at 50mph past a school. Some of those cars, sadly, are classics which have not been looked after.

The MOT (if done properly) does also provide buyers with at least some guidance on whether a vehicle is roadworthy - if it doesn't have an MOT one can assume that it can't easily get an MOT, and therefore the vehicle is worth less. If it has a brand new MOT from a reliable test station you know that the car doesn't have major safety issues, in theory.

I think the problem is a lack of knowledge. Our MOT tests are a fairly cursory affair, as a result of taking the cars in to a local garage - they know the cars, they do some basic checks, but fundamentally we know more about the cars than they do. They have to ask us whether something is factory original, whether the car needs to have A, B or C in order to pass. At which point we are effectively doing the MOT testers job for them.

I can also see insurance companies finding a way to exploit this for their own benefit. Had an accident? Assessor suddenly finds something that would equate to an MOT fail, but the owner was unaware of it - perhaps some rust that they didn't consider structural - suddenly you are on your own for not properly maintaining your vehicle. The current system assumes that if you have an MOT then your vehicle is in roadworthy condition, which for the vast majority is true.

Anyway, the Mondeo goes in for its MOT next week. We'll see whether a car that as a relatively educated motorist I believe to be 100% safe and reliable, with no reason whatsoever to fail an MOT will in fact be passed with no advisories by an independent VOSA test centre...

Jack.

The government issued a consultation document, I think, about 2 years ago that the MOT should be every 2 years like parts of Europe. My MOT man and many others were against this. Not because they were loosing business, but because some cars were presented for and MOT yearly were unsafe. Due to the lack of maintenance and the way they were treated many had decorated to a dangerous condition. Even new cars presented for their first MOT failed for a number of serious reasons namely tyres, steering and brakes. My local tyre fitter was telling me that the more expensive and more performance cars often had the worst tyres.

It is all very well having plenty of talk and ideas discussed on this forum but unless you put your views on the FBHVC website it is all wasted.

I think the general gist is;
1. that some form of independent check is necessary
2. general concern that not requiring an MOT could lead to limited or no road use
3. the opt out idea I think could be dangerous – result could end up as number 2 above!!
4. not needing an MOT could have insurance implications

Where you should be putting your views is on the FBHVC survey as I mentioned earlier.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FBHVCMoT

They represent all classic car owners

Dear members.

I took my Princess and trailer in to the Garage for their 6 monthly WOF (Warrant of Fitness) and LPG WOF inspection yesterday. I mentioned the subject of this post to the mechanic. His immediate response was of surprise and his words that followed were almost verbatim of what you wrote Peter, i.e

My MOT man and many others were against this. Not because they were loosing business, but because some cars were presented for and MOT yearly were unsafe. Due to the lack of maintenance and the way they were treated . . .

etc.

By the way, my set of inspections cost $NZ100 (plus, if I was still employed, an hour and a half "time off" work!), so I personally would be happy to not have to pay this as often as I do now. But . . . as we all know, if the inspection times were extended then the cost would almost be guaranteed to be "extended" too! And, I'm aware that while I'm very conscientious with the state of my cars, there's plenty of people out there who could kill me and my family with their car because they just "don't know" or "don't care!" . . . . and that's with 6 monthly inspections! (see the image below for a prime example).


This car had NO WOF. It had expired many months before this image was taken.

I'm told that some people who live in certain areas (maybe rural), avoid parking in the city when they have no WOF (and no Road Licence either, probably) as they could be ticketed and hit with a considerable fine. They park in a suburb's Supermarket car-park and take a bus or bludge off a friend to go to work. This car was in a quiet car-park. As it was the tyre on the LH front wheel that was bald, and may not have been noticed, I wrote a friendly note and put it under the wiper blade . . . it was still on the dashboard a week later, but what made me cringe was that there were children's toys in the car . . . Oh, and the tyre condition was even worse by then, of course

Granted the gas WOF is only needed every 12 months, but every 10(?) years the whole caboodle is given a very thorough going over . . even the tank is taken out and hydrostaticly tested! The last time that was done (6 years ago) the set of WOFs cost me $NZ500 !!! LPG is cheaper by the litre but it does have some disadvantages along with the advantages

Here's what our New Zealand Warrant of Fitness (WOF) inspection of a car covers . . . every 6 months:

Furtyher to Leos post.
I have been around automotive LPG sinve the mid 70s.....
LPG cert is every 12 months, and should be a thoough inspection ...ad the 10Yr tank cert/survey requires removing the tank and getting fully tested...The tank test is std for all tanks be portable lpg tanks, O2 acetlyene, argon what ever, and is completely separate to the car LPG cert
A WoF cannot be issued without a LPG cert/WoF.

We have issues with WoF inspectors in NZ, in my opinion most of them should not be certified to pass cars...The Government is far to PC "retraining" warnings for repeat offenders of dodgy and poor inspections...bottom line in many cases icluding the trandport checking stations ar lacking.
There are huge gaps in training WoT inspectors (MTA (motor traders asociation) when it comes to older cars...everyting from A frame suspention tollerances to older king pin and non power steering systems...then add lighting....
My bradford according to theWoF manual should fail on the reat lighting, but when pionted out to inspectors they say Im wrong...till I reference the page.
One cant have the center tail light/number plate light/brake light...plus side tail lights....but if the bulbs are removed and just us the relecter lens..it becomes legal
Then there are things like addinf seat belts to a woodeb frame vechile.
The assumption of any passenger is that if there are seat belts, they can safely assume they ar functional and meet certification stands....I dont figure the logic of adding seat belts mounted into wooden frame...may be false sence of security???....and still pass a Wof.....seats are another issue, again these must be certifird if changed from factory mountings and must be solid...again still pass wof....
The silly part is generally the people who let these things thru, also know the old cars....
Anpther issue is traficators nor working...If they are part of a car..even if indicators have been added..they must be in working order.

As u see in NZ we have the issue of old vechiles are also often..usualy in the 'too hard' basket.
So what are the solns
1/ Total expemtion..have a few accidents..eventual ban of old cars or along those lines
2/Statis quo......old cars donr get WoF, dicky WoFs as described above
3/Specialist old car WoF inspections with separate regulations....basicallt covering rust etc plus vechicle must meet orginal factory maintance specifications....that make inspections expensive, limits avalibity of inspectors in areas etc
4/ Clubs.....Clubs, who have facities and have the engineers/experts avalible, and quailfy the Std WoF inspectors coarses and examinations take over these inspections...facilties could be the club workshop or a member of the clubs business premises.....the inspector and the premises would be regist, as is under the current NZ system.
Not all clubs will be able to afford this...but there are similarities between say austens and jowetts....a club can run inspections for several manufactures.
Other things can be considered...like
income for the club/inspector
only 'club ' cars inspected..ie maybe joweet doing the inspection but that morgan must be a member of a affiliated/listed club...morgan club..vintage car club.....
The down side of this is the required purchase of approved equipment to do those inspections...ir jacks, axle stans, lever bars (hoist) headlight alignment , ....but there is income from the investment.

Back in the realy 80s the Govern in NZ decided any modifications to a vechile would be banned...rally cars, re power a vintage, re build a car..u see th implications here...total desruction of ALL motorsports from vintage to hot rod.
Sumissions where called , the motoring clubs banded together...milutary vechcle guys with hot rodeers, hot rodders with rally guys.....After several yrs of negiations a ststem was hammereded aout where the motoring clubs nominated experianced/ quailfied engineers to inspect modifications and to sign them off....This has now evolved into a small industry of engineers, proceedures, good advice and safe certified modified vechiles...
An industry often critised..and every time I have heard it it is because the people rebuild THEN get certified...rather than talk to a certifiers, have inspections of repairs /panels rust, and chassis mods welsing etc done during the build before being covered in paint...
Never forget..
The guy who puts his name on the bottom of the certification, WoF holds the responabilty if things go seriously wrong.....accountabity that they can and have been called up on criminal chargers of manslaughter.
Never loose respect for that fact.

Keith Andrew wrote:

My bradford according to theWoF manual should fail on the reat lighting, but when pionted out to inspectors they say Im wrong...till I reference the page.
One cant have the center tail light/number plate light/brake light...plus side tail lights....but if the bulbs are removed and just us the relecter lens..it becomes legal

Here's a image of the rear of my trailer where a rear light display was deemed to be illegal, a couple of years ago! . . . Can you see/guess where the (now corrected) problem lay? Scroll down to see the answer . . . ("Scroll down to see the answer" - sounds like the text in one of those 'rubbish' E-mails one gets! I can assure you that if you don't scroll down you will NOT die! ). There's a clue in the quote from Keith.



|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

You will/may have noticed that the light near to the numberplate (to illuminate it) is silver in colour . . . it was originally a red lens with a clear window in the side. So it was a plate light and a tail light combined.

Yes! I had too many red lights to show the rear of my trailer at night! Would you believe that!. I wasn't allowed to have two red lights on one side and a single one on the other!

Ahhh, but (and here's a fine example of Kiwi ingenuity) I was able to comply right there in the WOF inspection bay by putting a couple of layers of masking tape over the red part so as to satisfy the (very flexible) inspector . . . WOF passed! The silver paint on the inside of the lens followed when I got home . . .

Bureaucracy at it's best, eh?

The point about any modification is very important as this needs to be interpreted in law and by insurance companies. These days it can mean not using a manufacturer's certified part or even not fitted by a maunufacturer's certified mechanic. It is obviously rediculous when it comes to older cars; but there was a push by manufacturer's to push this through EU legislation.
I think in the UK an MOT tester has never been prosecuted for passing an unfit vehicle as it is understood the certificate does not consitute roadworthiness. There have been some rogue testers who have been prosecuted but that was really for fraud.

an unfit vehicle as it is understood the certificate does not consitute roadworthiness.

Thats crazy....At the time of the inpection the car should pass....IF any issues..say a bottom ball joint or tyre dept pass at that time, then a note is made on the sheet that it should be seen to before the next check....

Buit if the certificate does not consitute roadworthiness....why have thr damn thing in the 1st place....and why have an inspector put his mark at the bottom...is not the piont of signing a document that one takes responsabity for that documents contents?.....crazy.

I was sorry not to find any reference to this matter in the December Jowetteer. Perhaps we did not find out about it before November 20th - certainly it does not appear to have been very widely publicised. My son is an MoT examiner and he had not heard about it.

I hope that this will be remedied in the January issue BUT members must be exhorted to respond by the 26th January LATEST

I wonder how this will sit with those clubs that publish bi-monthly or quarterly magazines?

Not a lot of time for 'Consultation', let alone subsequent deliberation before implementation!

Still, think of all the Regulation that will be saved (the stated objective of the exercise).