Why are very old cars exempt from needing an MOT?
Discussion
You do not need to get an MOT if: the vehicle was built or first registered more than 40 years ago. no 'substantial changes' have been made to the vehicle in the last 30 years, for example replacing the chassis, body, axles or engine to change the way the vehicle works.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles
Obviously there are some incredibly well maintained classic cars out there, but there must be plenty of 40+ year old old clunkers too, why on earth should they be exempt from a basic check of their roadworthiness?
Drop the emissions bit by all means, but basic roadworthiness should surely still be a requirement of use on public roads?
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles
Obviously there are some incredibly well maintained classic cars out there, but there must be plenty of 40+ year old old clunkers too, why on earth should they be exempt from a basic check of their roadworthiness?
Drop the emissions bit by all means, but basic roadworthiness should surely still be a requirement of use on public roads?
Cold said:
Ari said:
Drop the emissions bit by all means, but basic roadworthiness should surely still be a requirement of use on public roads?
It is. Hope that helps. Ari said:
...there must be plenty of 40+ year old old clunkers too...
Must there?What if the data shows classic cars / bikes aren't typically doing much mileage and aren't disproportionately involved in accidents due to lack of roadworthiness?
Edited by monthou on Wednesday 4th September 10:33
Because evidence received in the consultations that led to the introduction of the MoT exemption showed that:
- the number of 40+ yr vehicles presented for the test was a ting portion of the total.
- the failure rate for Historic Vehicles was very low.
- most Historic Vehicles do very low annual mileage.
- a small but significant portion of the MoT failures recorded by Historic Vehicles were erroneous and caused by testers applying understanding of modern vehicles in ways that weren't suitable - failing vintage cars with entirely normal freelance in steering boxes or kingpins, for instance.
So it was decided to allow Historic Vehicles to be exempt from the test, and that owners were doing a pretty good job of keeping them in good condition. And without slackening the overarching requirement for all vehicles to be in a roadworthy condition when on the road.
It's an optional thing anyway - you have to declare a particular vehicle to be exempt from the MoT.
Despite what I've written above, I prefer the peace of mind of having an independent set of eyes go over my cars once a year, if only because it's quite possible for issues to develop slowly and unnoticed.
- the number of 40+ yr vehicles presented for the test was a ting portion of the total.
- the failure rate for Historic Vehicles was very low.
- most Historic Vehicles do very low annual mileage.
- a small but significant portion of the MoT failures recorded by Historic Vehicles were erroneous and caused by testers applying understanding of modern vehicles in ways that weren't suitable - failing vintage cars with entirely normal freelance in steering boxes or kingpins, for instance.
So it was decided to allow Historic Vehicles to be exempt from the test, and that owners were doing a pretty good job of keeping them in good condition. And without slackening the overarching requirement for all vehicles to be in a roadworthy condition when on the road.
It's an optional thing anyway - you have to declare a particular vehicle to be exempt from the MoT.
Despite what I've written above, I prefer the peace of mind of having an independent set of eyes go over my cars once a year, if only because it's quite possible for issues to develop slowly and unnoticed.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 4th September 10:38
Ari said:
Cold said:
It is. Hope that helps.
Yes it does. Now can you help with why there is no requirement to actually check that this is the case?
A mundane Eurobox might go the best part of a year with skimpy tyres, worn brakes and leaking dampers before the MOT flags them. But the service plan means it won't be scheduled to see the inside of a dealership for another 20 months.
because the Government, and their advisors, in their wisdom, thinks every classic car owner keeps their car in concours condition.
Most classic car restoration companies, like ours, thinks this is a poor decision, as whilst many do keep their cars in good order, many are less diligent, and sometimes the first inkling of a problem is an advisory on an MoT.
Yes, some regulations need to be given some leeway when compared against modern cars, - emissions, oil leaks etc., but fundamental safety issues are important, and owners adapt their driving to a car that is slowly deteriorating, and its only when comparing numbers on a brake roller test for example, that the issues are highlighted.
Most classic car restoration companies, like ours, thinks this is a poor decision, as whilst many do keep their cars in good order, many are less diligent, and sometimes the first inkling of a problem is an advisory on an MoT.
Yes, some regulations need to be given some leeway when compared against modern cars, - emissions, oil leaks etc., but fundamental safety issues are important, and owners adapt their driving to a car that is slowly deteriorating, and its only when comparing numbers on a brake roller test for example, that the issues are highlighted.
said:
It is in their words "a deathtrap" yet they still drove it on the road "because over 40 years old, doesn't need an MOT"
There are many cars over 40 yrs old that people would consider a death trap.No Seatbelts
Open cabins
Drum brakes all round (some older cars only have brakes on the rear!)
No crumple zones
But on the other side of the coin:
They don't tend to be driven much
They are driven at much lower speeds
They are driven by people who take a lot more care when driving older vehicles, because they are fully aware of their limitations.
And finally, it's highly unlikely that the car in the video will ever really be used on the road anymore.
Edited by Olivergt on Wednesday 4th September 10:47
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
It is in their words "a deathtrap" yet they still drove it on the road "because over 40 years old, doesn't need an MOT"
Perfect example. Yes I can believe most 40+ year old cars are well maintained. But some aren't. Most three year old cars are well maintained too. But some aren't. We test those.
andrewcliffe said:
because the Government, and their advisors, in their wisdom, thinks every classic car owner keeps their car in concours condition.
Most classic car restoration companies, like ours, thinks this is a poor decision, as whilst many do keep their cars in good order, many are less diligent, and sometimes the first inkling of a problem is an advisory on an MoT.
Yes, some regulations need to be given some leeway when compared against modern cars, - emissions, oil leaks etc., but fundamental safety issues are important, and owners adapt their driving to a car that is slowly deteriorating, and its only when comparing numbers on a brake roller test for example, that the issues are highlighted.
That's interesting feedback from someone used to dealing with these, thanks. Most classic car restoration companies, like ours, thinks this is a poor decision, as whilst many do keep their cars in good order, many are less diligent, and sometimes the first inkling of a problem is an advisory on an MoT.
Yes, some regulations need to be given some leeway when compared against modern cars, - emissions, oil leaks etc., but fundamental safety issues are important, and owners adapt their driving to a car that is slowly deteriorating, and its only when comparing numbers on a brake roller test for example, that the issues are highlighted.
Doesn't this just encourage someone with an old Vauxhall Nova sitting about with a failed last MOT in 2019 because rust and they have every intention of restoring it , stick a tarpaulin over it for it's final 5 years til it ticks over to 40 and then just get back in it and drive it, or sell it on, no longer as an MOT fail?
RONV said:
All classic cars should have a MOT and and those with modifications like larger engines as there are a lot of them are not qualified to carry out the work.
If they're modified too much from standard the exemption doesn't apply. You can't drop a V8 in a Vauxhall Viva and still enjoy test-exempt 'Historic Vehicle' status. 2xChevrons said:
Because evidence received in the consultations that led to the introduction of the MoT exemption showed that:
- the number of 40+ yr vehicles presented for the test was a ting portion of the total.
- the failure rate for Historic Vehicles was very low.
- most Historic Vehicles do very low annual mileage.
- a small but significant portion of the MoT failures recorded by Historic Vehicles were erroneous and caused by testers applying understanding of modern vehicles in ways that weren't suitable - failing vintage cars with entirely normal freelance in steering boxes or kingpins, for instance.
So it was decided to allow Historic Vehicles to be exempt from the test, and that owners were doing a pretty good job of keeping them in good condition. And without slackening the overarching requirement for all vehicles to be in a roadworthy condition when on the road.
It's an optional thing anyway - you have to declare a particular vehicle to be exempt from the MoT.
Despite what I've written above, I prefer the peace of mind of having an independent set of eyes go over my cars once a year, if only because it's quite possible for issues to develop slowly and unnoticed.
Good info, thanks.- the number of 40+ yr vehicles presented for the test was a ting portion of the total.
- the failure rate for Historic Vehicles was very low.
- most Historic Vehicles do very low annual mileage.
- a small but significant portion of the MoT failures recorded by Historic Vehicles were erroneous and caused by testers applying understanding of modern vehicles in ways that weren't suitable - failing vintage cars with entirely normal freelance in steering boxes or kingpins, for instance.
So it was decided to allow Historic Vehicles to be exempt from the test, and that owners were doing a pretty good job of keeping them in good condition. And without slackening the overarching requirement for all vehicles to be in a roadworthy condition when on the road.
It's an optional thing anyway - you have to declare a particular vehicle to be exempt from the MoT.
Despite what I've written above, I prefer the peace of mind of having an independent set of eyes go over my cars once a year, if only because it's quite possible for issues to develop slowly and unnoticed.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 4th September 10:38
If i get a classic again i will still be doing an annual mot as a sensible checkover and because i am not a home mechanic.
Personally i would prefer that if there has to be an exemption it should be 60 years or a fixes date so that 80s stuff and onwards always need a mot
TimmyMallett said:
Doesn't this just encourage someone with an old Vauxhall Nova sitting about with a failed last MOT in 2019 because rust and they have every intention of restoring it , stick a tarpaulin over it for it's final 5 years til it ticks over to 40 and then just get back in it and drive it, or sell it on, no longer as an MOT fail?
I think, although I might be wrong, that when you apply for historic status the car must have a current MOTAri said:
Perfect example. Yes I can believe most 40+ year old cars are well maintained. But some aren't.
Most three year old cars are well maintained too. But some aren't. We test those.
Most two year old cars are well maintained. But some aren't. We don't test those. Do you think we should because of some edge cases?Most three year old cars are well maintained too. But some aren't. We test those.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff