Yeah that would be crazy because pre 1960s having no MOT makes no sense the MOT is for safety pre 60s cars are even more likley to be unsafe than a more modern car. Although i suppose you could argue most people who have a pre 1960s car these days are going to be collectors or enthusiasts so in theory they are more likley to maintain there cars to a higher standard than your average car owner. But i don't think laws are past on 'theories' like that. are they?
From Bungle's link Public Consultation - Pre-1960 Historic Vehicles MoT Exemption Review
1.7 Pre-1960 manufactured vehicles are largely well maintained by their owners. The initial MoT test failure rate for these vehicles in 2009 was less than 10%, whilst the initial MoT test failure rate for post-1960 manufactured vehicles was over 30%.
but thats still 1 in 10 pre 1960s cars becoming unsafe every year. Which is just unacceptable, and if there is a lack of MOT there also starts to be a lack of incentive to make sure its safe for the road. and even if they do try and keep on top of it and maintain it as best they can, alot of people don't have the time or equipment or even the knowledge to know a ball joint is about to go wrong. It would be a step backwards for safety and thats the last thing the goverment will do, plus its yet another way to make money. Why do you think they stopped letting cars over 25years old become road tax free? simples MONEY
