FHBVC & Historic Vehicle MoT Eexemption Review
Discussion
This is from the FBHVC, and there are some worrying points in here, highlighted in bold;
HISTORIC VEHICLE MOT EXEMPTION REVIEW
The Department for Transport issued a consultation paper in November 2011 proposing as its preferred option a complete exemption from testing requirements for all pre-1960 vehicles, a far wider proposal than had been considered within FBHVC. Other options being considered by DfT were complete exemptions for all pre-1945 vehicles and all pre-1920 vehicles, or do nothing. The background to the discussions on the MoT test consultations has been well reported in previous newsletters.
The three month consultation period was inadequate for FBHVC to employ its usual method to gain feedback on these wider proposals. Consequently, it was decided to gauge the views of enthusiasts by means of an on-line survey and full details were given in the last newsletter, on the website, and to the press.
Over 4000 responses were gathered on-line. The survey enabled comment on the choice of cut-off date and at the time of going to press these comments are still being analysed, although it has been possible to broadly categorise these opinions. Those taking part were asked to indicate the age of vehicle they owned, and this piece of information will also be taken into account when the final analysis of the results has been made.
Summary of Results
• 74% of respondents wish to see testing requirements for historic vehicles relaxed. !!!!!!!!
• 59% support the government’s preferred option of exempting all pre-1960 vehicles.
• 71% believe historic vehicles in commercial use should be subject to testing even if other pre-1960 vehicles are exempted; 14% said commercial use should make no difference to testing requirements.
• 53% of respondents said they would take their vehicles for test if this could be done on a voluntary basis; 33% said they would not seek a voluntary test.
The opinions and reasons for them were qualified in many of the responses with conditional statements that the choice only applied if various conditions were met. Most common conditions were that there should be:
• no risk of restriction on use; fair enough
• no risk of increased insurance premiums for untested vehicles; so get an MOT then!!
• no risk of insurers demanding (expensive) engineer’s reports; so get an MOT then!!
• some facility for a formal standardised test to demonstrate roadworthiness. That will be an MOT then????
The report will be published in full on the FBHVC website, FBHVC, when the analysis has been completed. In the last issue we indicated that we are seeking clarification from the DfT on aspects of the consultation, in particular on the ability to submit vehicles that fall inside the scope of any exemption to a voluntary test. The necessity for an MoT test is enshrined in other regulations: first registration on import; as part of the V765 procedure; obtaining an age related mark; transfer of marks; re-licensing from unlicensed etc. In all these circumstances a test is necessary for safety reasons and the prevention of fraud, and in the case of the import of vehicles never registered in the UK, conformity with Construction and Use regulations where the current Individual Vehicle Approval test would not be appropriate. We will be asking the Department for Transport to seriously consider this.
Full newsletter here http://fbhvc.co.uk/files/2012/02/FBH...1-2012-PDF.pdf
As an aside, In the statemet by Mike Penning, when he first put the consultation forward we see the FHBVC figure on mileage again...
Two-thirds of pre-1960 licensed vehicles (vehicles manufactured prior to 1 January 1960) are driven less than 500 miles each year. This is significantly less than the 9,000 miles driven on average by all licensed vehicles.
It really does make you wonder just how in touch the FBHVC is with its member clubs membership!
HISTORIC VEHICLE MOT EXEMPTION REVIEW
The Department for Transport issued a consultation paper in November 2011 proposing as its preferred option a complete exemption from testing requirements for all pre-1960 vehicles, a far wider proposal than had been considered within FBHVC. Other options being considered by DfT were complete exemptions for all pre-1945 vehicles and all pre-1920 vehicles, or do nothing. The background to the discussions on the MoT test consultations has been well reported in previous newsletters.
The three month consultation period was inadequate for FBHVC to employ its usual method to gain feedback on these wider proposals. Consequently, it was decided to gauge the views of enthusiasts by means of an on-line survey and full details were given in the last newsletter, on the website, and to the press.
Over 4000 responses were gathered on-line. The survey enabled comment on the choice of cut-off date and at the time of going to press these comments are still being analysed, although it has been possible to broadly categorise these opinions. Those taking part were asked to indicate the age of vehicle they owned, and this piece of information will also be taken into account when the final analysis of the results has been made.
Summary of Results
• 74% of respondents wish to see testing requirements for historic vehicles relaxed. !!!!!!!!
• 59% support the government’s preferred option of exempting all pre-1960 vehicles.
• 71% believe historic vehicles in commercial use should be subject to testing even if other pre-1960 vehicles are exempted; 14% said commercial use should make no difference to testing requirements.
• 53% of respondents said they would take their vehicles for test if this could be done on a voluntary basis; 33% said they would not seek a voluntary test.
The opinions and reasons for them were qualified in many of the responses with conditional statements that the choice only applied if various conditions were met. Most common conditions were that there should be:
• no risk of restriction on use; fair enough
• no risk of increased insurance premiums for untested vehicles; so get an MOT then!!
• no risk of insurers demanding (expensive) engineer’s reports; so get an MOT then!!
• some facility for a formal standardised test to demonstrate roadworthiness. That will be an MOT then????
The report will be published in full on the FBHVC website, FBHVC, when the analysis has been completed. In the last issue we indicated that we are seeking clarification from the DfT on aspects of the consultation, in particular on the ability to submit vehicles that fall inside the scope of any exemption to a voluntary test. The necessity for an MoT test is enshrined in other regulations: first registration on import; as part of the V765 procedure; obtaining an age related mark; transfer of marks; re-licensing from unlicensed etc. In all these circumstances a test is necessary for safety reasons and the prevention of fraud, and in the case of the import of vehicles never registered in the UK, conformity with Construction and Use regulations where the current Individual Vehicle Approval test would not be appropriate. We will be asking the Department for Transport to seriously consider this.
Full newsletter here http://fbhvc.co.uk/files/2012/02/FBH...1-2012-PDF.pdf
As an aside, In the statemet by Mike Penning, when he first put the consultation forward we see the FHBVC figure on mileage again...
Two-thirds of pre-1960 licensed vehicles (vehicles manufactured prior to 1 January 1960) are driven less than 500 miles each year. This is significantly less than the 9,000 miles driven on average by all licensed vehicles.
It really does make you wonder just how in touch the FBHVC is with its member clubs membership!
Edited by Rich G on Monday 13th February 18:05
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff