Roadworthiness testing for vehicles of historic interest

[vxah]

I am a bit concerned that some the statistics and assumptions are flawed.....e.g. more vehicles in the 1978 - 87 age group are involved in accidents than the 1960-78 group' .....isn't that just because there are a lot more of them being driven?.

also to illustrate the randomness of some figures.....there are a couple of MOT testers near me... one will not take pre-bookings, so if you take your car to him and the MOT cert. has expired you. are illegal.
he will also not do any repairs or replace any light bulbs etc. so his fail rate would probably be high.
HOWEVER when I took the elan to him he drooled over it saying he used to own one, ,gave it a perfunctory inspection [didn't even put it up on a ramp] and passed it.

another MOT guy near me is very different....will take pre-bookings and is quite thorough even with the elan..
BUT he will bend over backwards to pass a car at the first attempt.....i.e. repair/replace lights, tighten exhaust clamps, etc.. even on stuff which would only be an advisory [and doesn't usually charge].......so his failure rate will be very low....

I am leaning towards a basic safety test for classic vedhicles.....mainly because I don't have a ramp, pit or post lift to regularly inspect the underside.........and a second [unbiased] opinion is often beneficial.

fred

DVSA strive for uniformity which is why your man that puts a bulb in to get a pass first time should record it as a PRS (pass rectified at site) this way it still goes on the statistics as a fail first time on lighting but you go away with a pass!
If your other man has a very low failure rate then before long DVSA will be asking why? Well they might if they have the staff!
Even though it costs me money I am for all vehicles being inspected, there are plenty of diy owners and professionals for that matter that just could overlook a dangerous fault that an inspection just might pick up?

[rcraven]

These proposals don't reduce red tape they increase it.

And how on earth, without an MOT to look at the odometer once a year, could they possibly impose a mileage limit.[/b]

They've also overlooked the fact that pre-1937 cars don't have to have a speedometer and therefore presumably won't have an odometer. I drove around for more than a year without one in a pre-1937 car, relying on the rev counter and sometimes a sat-nav.

In fact, I'm not sure that an odometer or mileometer is compulsory even when a speedometer is. I can't find any Construction & Use Regulation requiring one.

[Spyder fan]

I'm very happy with a yearly test and will continue to have my cars tested even if stupidity triumphs and 25 + year old cars are exempted.

It keeps me on my toes regarding maintenance and the yearly MOT has revealed faults with my +2 that could have been a cause for concern if not attended to.

BTW, to avoid a Q plate you need to retain the original body or chassis and at least 2 major components, these 2 components have to be either original or original type. Spyder converted cars retain the original body and steering and suspension, definitely not a candidate for a Q plate, also Club Lotus will verify a Spyder converted car as being a true reflection of the marque and this is accepted by DVLA in that Club Lotus are accepted as the authority in the matter.

[LorraineLH]

Reading various classic car forums, it seems that most classic owners are in favour of some sort of annual test. I hope most of them find the time to fill in the questionnaire.

[rgh0]

These proposals don't reduce red tape they increase it.

And how on earth, without an MOT to look at the odometer once a year, could they possibly impose a mileage limit.

If they want to reduce red tape one simple method would be to change all this exemption crap to: "If a vehicle is travelling at more than 25 mph on a public highway and was registered more than 3 years ago it must have a valid MOT certificate"

Sounds good and should require registration and a MOT for every bike if the rider is wearing Lycra as their intention is certainly to go over 25 mph

cheers
Rohan

[billwill]

These proposals don't reduce red tape they increase it.

And how on earth, without an MOT to look at the odometer once a year, could they possibly impose a mileage limit.

If they want to reduce red tape one simple method would be to change all this exemption crap to: "If a vehicle is travelling at more than 25 mph on a public highway and was registered more than 3 years ago it must have a valid MOT certificate"

Sounds good and should require registration and a MOT for every bike if the rider is wearing Lycra as their intention is certainly to go over 25 mph

cheers
Rohan

MOT of bikes in London would probably be a very good idea; especially if it insisted on testing lights as well.

I see so many "suicide jockeys" riding up Holloway Road after dark when I'm waiting for a bus.

Suicide Jockeys: Dark clothes, dark hair, no lights, no reflective jacket or bands on a bicycle after dark.