 | Home > Off Topic > Historic vehicles, how to know when they're not legal now? |
 
|
|
|
| Killer90 Site Sponsor Member Since: 09 Oct 2011 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 6478   
|
They did say that they may make owners who are Mot exempt have there vehicle tested by a local specialist - so save on a £40 mot and pay a £60 + vat labour charge to have the motor checked over
 Only Britain would do this.  If it comes to it, ill be getting the series 1 mot'd instead of a check CSK Automotive
www.cskautomotive.co.uk Like us on Facebook - www.facebook.com/csklr Follow us on Instagram - @cskautomotive |
||
30th Dec 2012 11:03pm |
|
| udderlyoffroad Member Since: 18 Jul 2011 Location: Bristol Posts: 124
|
Uhhm, you do know that the an MOT test certificate confirms that at the time of test, the vehicle has met the minimum acceptable environmental and road safety standards. It does not mean that the vehicle is roadworthy for the life of the certificate?
The fact that some pre-1960 vehicles are now not required to have a current MOT cert on the database, does not somehow exempt the driver from the requirement only to drive on the Queen's highway with a roadworthy vehicle. Obvious but it seems some people and members of the motoring press haven't grasped this basic fact: an MOT cert is not a green light to drive for another year without any form of maintenance or servicing 'cos the gubmint says its ok. Real trucks don't have spark plugs |
||
|
30th Dec 2012 11:33pm |
|
| WelshGas Member Since: 01 Oct 2010 Location: Vale of Glamorgan Posts: 935  
|
As a vehicle owner you are in breach of the various motoring regulations etc: if your vehicle is driven on the public highway and it is NOT road legal/safe, and this is 365+ days of the year. The MOT is basically a safety check at one point in time BUT is also designed to point out factors that may arise before the next annual check i.e.: Tyres approaching the minimum legal tread depth, Brake pads which will wear below the legal limit before the next check. The MOT does not absolve you from ensuring your vehicle is in a roadworthy condition next week/next month etc: In fact if you think about it, NO vehicle should fail it's MOT because that would mean it was not in a roadworthy condition when driven to the Test Centre. Likewise no vehicle should be allowed to drive away from the Test Centre having failed it's MOT. Both of these scenarios should result in the owner being convicted of one or more motoring violations.
Most owners, there are always exceptions, of Historic vehicles probably ensure their vehicles are in tip top condition. It's the boy racers who change tyres for the MOT etc: we should be more concerned with. Many only do the safety maintenance required to pass the MOT and ignore it for the rest of the year.  LANDYWATCH
Neighbourhood Watch for Land Rover Owners http://www.landywatch.co.uk/smf2/index.php |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 1:30am |
|
| Glynparry25 Member Since: 16 Feb 2009 Location: Miserable Midlands Posts: 3015 
|
Why do we have MOTs?
Why not enter into the real world and get owners responsible for their own vehicles. In Canada, Australia, and SA (I do believe) there is no MOT, but if you are caught on the road with an unsafe car you get done for it. Too many people in the UK think that (as mentioned above) it is a pass for the year. I know people who have bad brakes, tire or other problems with their cars but have a "I am good until next month where I will get it sorted with its MOT". Because there is a mandatory test the police just check to see if you have a MOT (Which might not be legit) rather than seeing if your car is actually roadworthy- another reason for me not wanting to move back next year In respect to the OP.......... If you feel that your vehicle isn't roadworthy you check it out. Either A. get an MOT done every year, or B.do all the checks yourself and take it to a MOT station to ask to get the brakes tested (about 10mins work at the cost of about £5-10)- you don't even need a print out, just need to make sure the dials indicate that all is good........... If you don't notice your brakes getting bad, or your chassis rusting through you should be taken to court and charged with all the offences above as you shouldn't be in charge of a moor vehicle (same goes for someone in a new car that has major problems). Glyn   |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 7:56am |
|
| megatoad Member Since: 07 Jan 2012 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 358 
|
Sadly having lived in the US where the only test is for emmisions you can see the disaterous effect of that idea. The number of old clunkers out there with worn out tyres, no brakes, lights, windscreen wipers etc is stunning. I lived in Atlanta, and every evening, as soon as it rained you would hear the sirens as emergency services headed out onto the 400, I75, 85 & 285 etc to deal with the wrecks from the yanks that would not slow down in the spray and still wove through the multiple lanes. Yes I have a 1952 S1, YES I will still get an MOT each year as will most of the LRSOC members judging by the comments on that forum too. I allows for an independent inspection of our maintainance otherwise sooner or later I might get complacent and not check thouroughly for chassis corrosion etc. What is not clear is what is the status if the car fails the test !! He who dies with the most toys wins 
Defender 90 & 110, S1 80", Disco 1, S111 88 LRSOC & CVLRC |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 10:38am |
|
| leeds Member Since: 28 Dec 2009 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 8578
|
If a car fails an MOT but does NOT require an MOT in one respect it would still be legal to drive on the road as the MOT is not required.
However other laws could be broken. Failed MOT on defective brakes then you could be guilty of driving a car in a dangerous/defective state. Also you might have trouble with your insurance as you would be driving a vehicle in a defective state and are aware of it. Therefore your insurance might be invalid etc. To me an independent check once a year is a good idea 
Let's face it a MOT is only a spot check once a year and does NOT mean your vehicle is safe as you drive it out of the MOT station. Drive over a broken bottle/metal rubbish in the road, one slashed tyre and you could be guilty of driving with a defective tyre! Brendan PS Glyn, Australia does have MOTs, however it depends on the state if it is annual or when you sell the car etc |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 10:54am |
|
| udderlyoffroad Member Since: 18 Jul 2011 Location: Bristol Posts: 124
|
Glyn my old chap, what I think we have there is a classic case of 'brown-tinted expat syndrome' - in that you see only the good in other countries (and not the bad) and vice versa in your motherland. Let me reassure you that back in blighty the old bill do take an active interest in the condition of your vehicle. But, they do leave it to specially trained officers to make the call as to whether to prosecute ('vehicle examiners'). Don't confuse these with VOSA 'wombles' who concentrate on commercial vehicles. And have you actually been to the US - the Roadworthiness of some sheds there are, uhhm, interesting. Before anyone mentions that it varies from State to State - yep it does. My brother lives in the mountains in rural Arizona (4x4 not optional) - which is vastly different from the standard of motors frequenting LA, CA where he used to live. Some 'interesting' vehicles driving about Mediterranean countries too, not that I've personally experienced Cyprus so won't cast aspersions, but several visits to Greece and Malta have confirmed my prejudices! Real trucks don't have spark plugs |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 11:43am |
|
| strang Member Since: 16 May 2012 Location: Happy Valley Posts: 1365 
|
My Series One has just become MOT exempt (although its last MOT - which it passed was in October 2012). Its insurance also came up for renewal at the beginning of December. I asked when I renewed the insurance what the companies take on MOT exemption was, and was told that if I have a crash, and the vehicle is subsequently found to be in an unroadworthy condition, then they will not be paying out.
So at the end of the day, it is down to the driver to ensure roadworthiness. Judging by the number of cars currently driving around with non working headlights, not many people do this anyway...... Euro-Leafing to infinity and beyond..... |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 1:47pm |
|
| Glynparry25 Member Since: 16 Feb 2009 Location: Miserable Midlands Posts: 3015
|
I am not expat, I am still serving. I have lived in Canada, Germany, Belize, Cyprus and visited many other places. With that in mind, I will not settle in Cyprus. Yes every aspect of motoring is cheaper, MOTs are every 2 years and are more rigorous than UK standards. But there are still complete sheds on the road. The roads are quite clear etc. But many other things make this a place that I don't want to live. I have narrowed my areas down to Canada or Australia at the moment, and possibly SA (but haven't actually been there). My attitude is - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VEHICLE YOU DRIVE (MOT or no MOT). As for checks on the road- I have driven in the UK for about 8-10 years on and off. This includes new cars, old cars, modified cars, tractors and plant. In that time I have been pulled over once for speeding and once because the car I was in was making a 'strange noise'......... I guess the police officer had never heard a waste gate flutter before. In Canada I know of people who have been pulled over for a vehicle in a bad state..... the traffic policeman will then go around the car and highlight all the defective parts, give a fine (VERY STEEP) and then they then go on their way (unless it is classified as dangerous). If you cause an accident because of defects your insurance is invalid and you go to prison for your actions (if someone dies as a result). MOT is pointless. I once did one and on the say home went over a large stone- this caused a bulge in the side-wall. So at that point only 30 mins after an MOT my car was illegal, non-roadworthy. How many people in the UK (anywhere for that matter) would then go "I need to change the tire straight away" or would they even bother and have the attitude of "I am good for another 364 days, it will be OK"...... But if they did it going to the MOT it would get changed purely for that reason. On top of all that there are stations who will do dodgy MOTs. I am guilty of using the system- I used to take my old car to a specific garage as it would always pass its emissions test where many other places would have failed it....... so I would have an MOT which was questionable- granted it was only about emissions but there are places that will do it for many other things. If you drive a car with a rotten chassis, bad brakes, or other major defects down the road, in my opinion you shouldn't have a licence........ Even if it has 6 months certificate left. Glyn |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 2:31pm |
|
| GUM97 Member Since: 05 Feb 2012 Location: Cheshire Posts: 3555 
|
I completely agree with you there Glyn. If you know that your vehicle is in an un-road worthy state, then you should also know that the faults/defects need fixing. If you are of the opinion that "my car is still in a road worthy state becase it has an MOT" then you are completely wrong, and I'm sorry, but if you think that, then you should most definately not have a licence! An engine to TDi for! "Land Rover- Proudly turning drivers into mechanics since 1948" |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 5:16pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 16895 
|
I disagree. If it is legally roadworthy, it would pass the MOT test. Ergo, if it failed the test it is not in a condition legally to be on the road irrespective of whether there was or was not a requirement to submit it for the test. |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 10:26pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 16895
|
No change there then. If you have a current MOT certificate, then have an accident and the vehicle is found to be unroadworthy, the insurer won't pay out and you are legally uninsured. I really don't understand the fuss about all this! Whether you need an MOT certificate or not makes not a blind bit of difference; the driver is responsible for making sure the vehicle is legal and roadworthy before and throughout each and every journey (and the registered keeper is similarly responsible if the vehicle is unattended not on s journey in a place to which the provisions of the RTAs apply). The only reason I can see for taking an historic vehicle that doesn't need a test for a test is if the owner lacks the skill, knowledge, judgement, expertise or confidence to determine if it is roadworthy, in which case good on them. Would you take your two-year-old Defender for a voluntary MOT test? I doubt it, but statistically it is more likely to fail. The simple fact is that so few historic vehicles fail it is simply not cost-effective to require them to be tested and the DFT's view is that the test provides no safety function, so the requirement has been scrapped. |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 10:45pm |
|
| leeds Member Since: 28 Dec 2009 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 8578
|
BW, you are guilty of selective quoting!
If a car fails an MOT and does NOT require a MOT the driver can not be done for having no MOT as it is not legally required. HOWEVER OTHER LAWS COULD BE BROKEN! Under 2012 MOT changes dirty lights could be cause for an MOT failure. So a historic vehicle which does NOT require a MOT fails only on dirty lights. Owner can not be bothered/does not have time/money for a retest so gives them a quick rub clean and is perfectly legal. Remember MOT are an individual tester opinion of the condition of the vehicle.
Our trailers and caravan do NOT require a MOT however we have them serviced and checked over once year. Just to ensure that an independent person has checked the roadworthiness of the things we tow. Whilst that check is done it is not a guarantee that they will be 100% roadworthy for next 364 days. Brendan |
||
|
31st Dec 2012 11:50pm |
|
| kingofthesparks Member Since: 06 Jan 2011 Location: Very close to Watford gap services , northants Posts: 987 
|
WTF can't believe this thread , if people are really worried that without an mot they won't know if their vehicle is roadworthy then should they really be trusted with a driving licence, what happened to daily vehicle checks etc.
|
||
|
1st Jan 2013 12:17am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
