27 replies to this topic

[davejf]

looks like it's all heading for restrictive and limited use for tax exempt cars

anyone want to buy a 80's log book and I.D tags

Are there any links to articles about this as i've not seen anything about this yet.
With info on what restrictions will be imposed as i'd like to find out as much as possible about it.

I somehow think my Dad will ignore it if it ever does become legal as he managed to use his old MG on 250 different days within one year a couple of years ago so he's not about to let someone tell him which day of the week he can use it!!

[Bungle]

talk to Barnet about his mini in Germany

[mab01uk]

Already been agreed in principle to exempt cars built before 1920 from MOT's, with a rolling date also possible according to FBHVC but no mention of the pre-1965 date but I did see the article mentioned in the classic car weekly newspapers this week.

FBHVC Discuss Key Issues with Transport Minister - Newsletter No.1 February 2011
On Tuesday 30 November senior members of the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs accompanied by Rt Hon Greg Knight MP, the chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group, attended a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Roads and Motoring, Mike Penning MP and two senior officials from DfT and DVLA.

The main issues raised by Greg Knight and the FBHVC were:
* DVLA - The bureaucracy involved with correcting or substituting engine numbers on V5C documents. Similarly, making minor engine capacity changes on old vehicles, which are not taxed on emission levels.
* DfT – Amending legislation to allow DVLA to mark V5Cs and computer records ‘non- transferable’ to enable current owners of historic vehicles to safeguard the permanent attachment of the registration to the original vehicle.
* VOSA – The UK should be making full use of the concessions allowed in the EU Roadworthiness Directive for old vehicles. The impact of the planned substitution of government testing stations to ATFs especially relating to Class 5 tests. The inconsistency between braking requirements for classes 5 and 6.
* Fuels – The proper labelling of petrol and diesel with a bio-fuel content. The provision of tested additives prior to the widespread introduction of petrol containing up to 10 per cent ethanol. What is the timescale for the publication of the commissioned reports relating to the impact of bio-fuel on historic vehicles?
* Planning – What changes are envisaged for modern vehicles which could potentially adversely affect the old vehicle parc?

The Minister made it very clear at the outset that he is sympathetic to the old vehicle movement (being involved personally) and expressed his willingness to look at cutting out unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy where practical. He assured us that his officials would look into our concerns and report back.

Since the meeting the Minister has agreed in principle with the suggestion of exempting cars and smaller vehicles built on or before 31 December 1920 and PCVs built on or before 31 December 1940 from MoT testing. He has asked DfT officials to begin the process of consultation and making the necessary legislative changes. It is anticipated that these dates could be reviewed periodically and the introduction of a rolling date provision has not been ruled out. Public Service Vehicles will not be included in these concessions.

This measure is welcomed by the FBHVC as it will mitigate many of the problems experienced by the owners of vehicles in these categories at the annual test. We must emphasise that road-going vehicles must be maintained in full working order at all times and we must strive to ensure that our accident level does not rise from the present virtually zero position.
http://fbhvc.co.uk/2...-february-2011/

[Cooperman]

Already been agreed in principle to exempt cars built before 1920 from MOT's, with a rolling date also possible according to FBHVC but no mention of the pre-1965 date but I did see the article mentioned in the classic car weekly newspapers this week.

FBHVC Discuss Key Issues with Transport Minister - Newsletter No.1 February 2011
On Tuesday 30 November senior members of the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs accompanied by Rt Hon Greg Knight MP, the chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group, attended a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Roads and Motoring, Mike Penning MP and two senior officials from DfT and DVLA.

The main issues raised by Greg Knight and the FBHVC were:
* DVLA - The bureaucracy involved with correcting or substituting engine numbers on V5C documents. Similarly, making minor engine capacity changes on old vehicles, which are not taxed on emission levels.
* DfT – Amending legislation to allow DVLA to mark V5Cs and computer records 'non- transferable' to enable current owners of historic vehicles to safeguard the permanent attachment of the registration to the original vehicle.
* VOSA – The UK should be making full use of the concessions allowed in the EU Roadworthiness Directive for old vehicles. The impact of the planned substitution of government testing stations to ATFs especially relating to Class 5 tests. The inconsistency between braking requirements for classes 5 and 6.
* Fuels – The proper labelling of petrol and diesel with a bio-fuel content. The provision of tested additives prior to the widespread introduction of petrol containing up to 10 per cent ethanol. What is the timescale for the publication of the commissioned reports relating to the impact of bio-fuel on historic vehicles?
* Planning – What changes are envisaged for modern vehicles which could potentially adversely affect the old vehicle parc?

The Minister made it very clear at the outset that he is sympathetic to the old vehicle movement (being involved personally) and expressed his willingness to look at cutting out unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy where practical. He assured us that his officials would look into our concerns and report back.

Since the meeting the Minister has agreed in principle with the suggestion of exempting cars and smaller vehicles built on or before 31 December 1920 and PCVs built on or before 31 December 1940 from MoT testing. He has asked DfT officials to begin the process of consultation and making the necessary legislative changes. It is anticipated that these dates could be reviewed periodically and the introduction of a rolling date provision has not been ruled out. Public Service Vehicles will not be included in these concessions.

This measure is welcomed by the FBHVC as it will mitigate many of the problems experienced by the owners of vehicles in these categories at the annual test. We must emphasise that road-going vehicles must be maintained in full working order at all times and we must strive to ensure that our accident level does not rise from the present virtually zero position.
http://fbhvc.co.uk/2...-february-2011/

Thanks for this. It's very interesting.

[Ethel]

Now I wonder which organisation for tweed wearing retired civil servants & circuit judges could be behind this? I wonder if the insurance companies will have anything to say about it? You can bet the tabloids will if a kiddy or 3 gets flattened by an untested old banger. I hope Bungle's not right, but you can almost hear them explaining how all classics live in a garage and only do a couple of hundred miles going to village fetes and Goodwood once a year, just like their MGA's 'n D types.

[yousmeg]

This just means that soon the roads will be ringing like hells bells

[Carlos W]

How utterly stupid! They sit in garages with their seized brakes then go to a few shows, that's probably more dangerous than my mondeo which does 15k a year!

Surely the older something gets the more likely it is to fail to an extent

Glad forum members see sense though

[62S]

You have to remember that the pre 1965 Mini owner is very different to the majority of posters on here.

Classic cars in Ireland don't have an annual MOT and the same in Denmark (8 years between MOT's!) and many other european countries, even the uber safe Swedes, allow at least two years between MOTs and you don't hear of the population being decimated by unroadworthy classic cars.

[JakeJakeJake]

Is it in the USA where there is no MOT at all?

[Ethel]

Certainly used to be no test in at least some States.

Britain is a bit different in that we have a lot of cars on not much road compared to most, so there's more chance of involving someone else when your brakes fail. It's still true that mechanical failure is to blame for a tiny proportion of accidents though.

It's what it says about the prejudices of our law makers that I find most distasteful, the implication that the, mostly, well heeled vintage car enthusiast can be trusted, but the rest of us plebs driving anything older than 3 years can't.

[StrokerBoy]

An MOT proves that a vehicle met a minimum standard of roadworthiness on a specific day. If you drive home proudly clutching your new green certificate, loosen all your wheelnuts, weld rusty spikes all over your bodywork and then drive everywhere at 120mph for the next 11.9 months, how much is your MOT worth to all the other poor road users ?

Every single vehicle user has a duty to maintain a standard of roadworthiness whenever it is used on the public road - you can easily (and quite rightly) get nicked for using bald tyres or knackered lights anytime whether you have a valid MOT or not.

I think the idea behind this proposal is that anyone with a pre-65 vehicle will be driving it out of love rather than because they need cheap transport, and will already devote more time and money to its maintenance than your average person with a normal car. They'll certainly have a better idea of its workings and upkeep. How often do you think most modern car drivers check their tyres, or even their oil for that matter ? A lot of them wouldn't even be able to change a wheel at the side of the road. I bet most Austin 7 owners could do a full engine rebuild without even looking at a manual just using the tools they've got on board.

Bear in mind how many vehicles we're talking about as an overall percentage of registered vehicles, and the relatively tiny mileages they cover too, and it makes perfect sense to me. Looks like I'm in a minority on here though.

[Kerrin]

Here in the IOM we have no MOT's at all.

If you import a car from England (Mainland) or fail to tax your car for longet than 2 years then it is subject to a one off test.

If the car is bought new from a garage and you keep it for 20 years, it will likely as not never be looked at by the testing station.

Having said all of that our test seemed to me to be more stringent than MOT's as i have bought some cars to the island with new MOTs and they have failed on loads of things. Perhaps that is more a sign of the standard of some MOT testing stations than anything else.

Over here it is up to you to responsibly maintain your own car.

Just my thoughts.

[yousmeg]

An MOT proves that a vehicle met a minimum standard of roadworthiness on a specific day. If you drive home proudly clutching your new green certificate, loosen all your wheelnuts, weld rusty spikes all over your bodywork and then drive everywhere at 120mph for the next 11.9 months, how much is your MOT worth to all the other poor road users ?

Every single vehicle user has a duty to maintain a standard of roadworthiness whenever it is used on the public road - you can easily (and quite rightly) get nicked for using bald tyres or knackered lights anytime whether you have a valid MOT or not.

I think the idea behind this proposal is that anyone with a pre-65 vehicle will be driving it out of love rather than because they need cheap transport, and will already devote more time and money to its maintenance than your average person with a normal car. They'll certainly have a better idea of its workings and upkeep. How often do you think most modern car drivers check their tyres, or even their oil for that matter ? A lot of them wouldn't even be able to change a wheel at the side of the road. I bet most Austin 7 owners could do a full engine rebuild without even looking at a manual just using the tools they've got on board.

Bear in mind how many vehicles we're talking about as an overall percentage of registered vehicles, and the relatively tiny mileages they cover too, and it makes perfect sense to me. Looks like I'm in a minority on here though.

hmmmmmm thats a very good point