95 replies to this topic

[slpj24]

I know a number of people are of the opinion that this has all been said/proposed before, and that it won't affect most cars. But sad to report, that whilst is has been proposed before, THIS TIME they mean business. This is a LIVE proposal, not coming just from the EU, but from UK GOV. UK GOV, is choosing to do this. It has nothing to do with us remaining or leaving the EU, even though the origins are from the EU.

 

And, it will affect ALL cars 40 years and older. There is NO choice in the matter. If the car is 40 plus, it WILL be classified as a VHI, and thus under the proposals, it WILL be mot exempted. That won't come without a cost attached.

 

The previous reports to HMG pretty much demonstrate the mileage limits they are exploring. That means for example, someone living in the south of England, could no longer drive to Scotland for example, because the round trip would exceed the annual limit of 1000 miles.

 

And as the term "substantially altered" has not yet been defiined, it could well turn out to be FAR stricter than people imagine. Cars that have previously satisfied an IVA check, if they are 40 years old, will have to now satisfify this new check, irrespective of how safely or well the previous alterations have been done. Because this NEW check, ISN'T about safety, it's a test to see how close to the original assembly the car still is, in order to classify as VHI..

 

NOBODY knows yet, what they will do with cars that don't qualify as "historic" under the new rules. They may simply be banned from the roads. Why would they exempt factory original cars, and limit their mileage, and yet allow substantially altered cars to carry on as before? They are NOT doing this for the benefit of classic car owners.

 

I understand, as I said, that at first this may seem attractive to some owners, since some owners already do less than 1000 miles per year. But i hope you will still vote against mileage limits, for those of us who do MORE than 1000 miles per year.

 

Having an mot each year is hardly much of an inconvenience. The test is pretty minimal anyway, and if ANY car can't pass an mot, it shouldn't be on the roads surely.

 

The only way to see the full ramifications of this, is to read the pdf files on the gov's website fully.

And the only way to oppose any of it, is to complete the response.

https://www.gov.uk/g...storic-interest

 

 

Also go to the FBHVC facebook page and respond to their online poll. The FBHVC are concerned enough to say they oppose ALL of this, and have requested as many comments and responses as possible. https://www.facebook.com/fedbhvc

 

[Archived2]

It's proposals and consultation right now. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet.

[mk1coopers]

Some period modifications for you, Radford Hatchback- major cutting of the shell, Broadspeed GT, major cutting of the shell, Minisprint, major cutting of the shell, all period modifications though, would you consider these cars not to be of historic interest, or will if be down to the owner to provide the proof of when and who (i.e the original converters) did the work ?

[Spider]

I find it had to fathom that they'd be taking such a blanket adversarial approach, they maybe, but the 'historic vehicle' market (in totality) is pretty big, huge even, in the UK, so there's a lot of businesses who could suffer and it could have a small impact on the economy in general. I think there must be more to it than this?

 

It's proposals and consultation right now. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet.

 

Yes, but if there's something in those proposals, it seems now is the time to speak up or forever hold your peace.

Edited by Moke Spider, 04 October 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[Cooperman]

In historic motor sport where period modifications are allowed, the onus is on the owner to provide the evidence unless the modifications are already listed on the original homologation papers. One might expect the same type of rules to be made and that would be fair as it would be easy for an owner to do. There are some historically important cars which will have been modified for competition and which have a lot of history attached to them. With the classic Mini it will be an easy matter to identify the ones with period mods. The problem might come when something like a prototype 4-wheel-drive Capri 3000, originally made for testing and rallycross, turned up and it could be difficult to find the evidence of originality/period authenticity.

The maximum mileage thing is a bit of a red herring, because it is so easy to adjust the mileage reading. Also, if you took your classic on a road trip around Europe you could exceed an arbitrary maximum set for the UK, but since a lot of the distance would be abroad that mileage could not count. I can't see the customs officers at each port recording and collating the mileages on classic cars departing from and returning through each port. Most classics only do a small annual mileage anyway, so the checking would be largely a waste of resources.

It will be really heavily modified out-of-period older cars which will suffer most. How replicas will get on is another matter. My son is building an Escort RS2000 rally car from a 1978 Escort 1300 shell. It will be to the complete correct homologated specification for a rally car, so one would expect the mods to be classed as 'period mods'. The same might apply to replica Cooper 'S's' used for motor-sport.

[mk1coopers]

So (in theory) if you have a car with peiod body modifications, (and the list is far more extensive just for Mini's, let alone all the other cars makes and models) you may end up in a situation where you have to prove that the car was modified in period by the original company that supplied the type of car you have.

This is going to be an interesting one, I suspect the powers the be may have under estimated the scope of the proposal, especially if the insurance companies turn round and insist on cars having annual checks (MOTS !) before they will insure them !

[Ethel]

I see 2 drivers for this, the collectors and museums (Lord Bath) for who the accumulative costs are significant. Their lobbying brought about the original tax exemption, which is voluntary, but abused.
Then there are the environmental concerns, which haven't hit us yet, but will be compulsory. It's not hard to imagine the 2 strands coming together.

Another option for policing restricted usage could be the black box regulated insurance already available to new drivers.

[slpj24]

"It's proposals and consultation right now. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet."

 

That's exactly the point minihobbymini.

 

I hope that EVERYTHING I have said is indeed jumping to WRONG conclusions. I hope that EVERYTHING I have said, I have exagerated, and inflated. But it seems to me, sadly, that I haven't. And why take the chance that I'm completely wrong, when there is a huge amount of evidence and previously changed legislation, that suggests I'm right?

 

Initially it was proposed that only pre-1920 vehicles should be mot exempt. What we got was all pre-1960 car exempt. And now they want to extend that, and add strings.

 

I'm being accused elsewhere of being too negative, and spreading doom and gloom. Well can someone please tell me what's positive about mot exemptions, when it appears VERY STRONGLY, that they will come at the expense of being told you can no longer travel for example, 3/4000 miles a year? Especially in the car you have owned for 40 years, and spent untold hours working on, and many thousands of pounds on over the years. And worse still, where is the positive in being told, that change(improvement) to the suspension you made, or that 5 speed g/box you fitted, now disqualifies the car as so called "historic", and thus you now have to either change it back, or perhaps not even be able to use on the public roads anymore. -- ---- And since nobody knows what is going to happen to "failed historics", that is distinctly possible too. Q plates at the least, banned at the worst.

 

I do think it is gloomy. And, it could easily spell a kind of doom. Doom for an interest many of us have had for many many years. I have 2 cars from the 60s. I only have these cars. I don't want or need a modern car. But I do need transport. I need to travel circa 6000 miles a year at present. If mileage limits are imposed, I could find myself forced to buy a modern car. Then I'll have nowhere to keep one of my 60's cars, and since I'll only be able to do circa 1000 miles a year in the one I keep, I'll be using the modern most of the time. I'll find it harder and harder to sustain my motivation to spend money and time on my remaining 60s car. Is this the point of it all? Demotivate to the extent that most people simply get rid of their old cars? Maybe.

 

Some say, but at the moment you are allowed to do this and that, or to change this and that, and that they can't see such proposals working. They say it would simply not be compatible with the situation as it stands now.

 

EXACTLY. It won't be the same. The whole point of this, is to change legislation. New rules, that will displace what's gone before. That's what these proposals are about. New order replaces the old order.

 

"Yes, but if there's something in those proposals, it seems now is the time to speak up of forever hold your peace."

 

I don't think It could be put better than that Moke Spider.

 

https://www.gov.uk/g...storic-interest

Edited by slpj24, 04 October 2016 - 08:53 AM.

[slpj24]

And just to add.

 

Altering the mileommeter will become a criminal offence. Sure, in an old car, it's easy to do. But since for the last numbers of years, annual mileages have been recorded on mot certs, and some insurance companies record them too, to keep your premiums down, I rather suspect that simply altering mileages will be pretty severly frowned on and penalised when detected. Who wants to risk no insurance payout if you have a prang, because you fiddled the mileage?

 

As someone suggested, Classic insurers may begin to insist on trackers for example.

 

But whatever is suggested to detect mileage fraud, who wants to be labelled a criminal, and have to keep sodding around with the speedo?

 

And this has been thought about as long ago as 2011. This was presented to Brussels.

http://eur-lex.europ...ELEX:32014L0045
White Paper of 28 March 2011 entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area

(13) Vehicles of historical interest are supposed to conserve the heritage of the period during which they were constructed, and are considered to be hardly used on public roads. It should be left to Member States to determine the periodicity of roadworthiness testing for such vehicles. It should also be for Member States to regulate roadworthiness testing for other types of specialised vehicles.

(25) Odometer fraud should be regarded as an offence liable to a penalty, because manipulation of an odometer may lead to an incorrect evaluation of the roadworthiness of a vehicle. The recording of mileage in the roadworthiness certificate and access for inspectors to that information should facilitate the detection of odometer tampering or manipulation. The exchange of information on odometer readings between the competent authorities of Member States should be examined by the Commission.

 

We may be leaving the EU, but that will take at least 2 years. Meanwhile, our own legislators, will already be working on this anyway. Plus, the new PM, has just indicated that ALL EU law will become UK law, and changed over time. So we can expect odometer fraud checking to be coming to a town near you too.

Edited by slpj24, 04 October 2016 - 09:11 AM.

[greenwheels]

Isn't a lot of this issue to do with that fundamental human right called FREEDOM, something we British have fought hard for over the centuries.

I run my Mini Estate as my everyday car. I do 4-5000 miles a year in the car of my choice because, quite frankly, it is the car that suits me best. I could go out and buy a brand new car for cash tomorrow, and we have looked around, but there is nothing we like that fulfils our needs. I consider  that it is my choice to drive my Mini and I don't see why some bureaucrat should make that choice for me, I pay them to reflect and facilitate my wishes. I would still get a voluntary MoT anyway, and you can be sure insurance companies will insist on it as proof of roadworthyness.

[Cooperman]

There is no requirement for a car to even have an odometer, let alone a working one. There is also nothing to stop an owner zeroing an odometer whenever he/she wishes. In fact I always set the odo to zero when I complete a full restoration. It is all legal as I don't claim the mileage to be correct if/when I sell the car.

Then again, I had to replace the speedo unit on a car a while back and the odo in the replacement had a completely different reading.

Trying to limit mileage is a non-starter in real terms as there are too many 'what-ifs' and 'maybe's' including mileage done abroad which would obviously not count.

As for 'black box trackers' can they be wired into a positive earth system and what if the fuse blows  ? I think the Old Bill have enough to do without trying to establish the actual mileage done by a classic car. An odometer can't be relied upon either as if is not calibrated and for it to be considered a legal record it would have to be. These are old cars and the odometers can simply stop working - it happens.

If in doubt disconnect the speedo and drive on the rev counter  . 

It's a real can of worms for the legislators to try to do this and could never be enforced.

[Ethel]

i can see black boxes coming for all of us. It's a powerful argument if they help manage congestion and allow driverless vehicles to "see" you better. The insurers could provide the leverage through premiums even if the gov't balks at legislating.

 

The personal freedom argument is always balanced by the freedoms of others - to breath clean air and not suffer global warming in this case, whether that argument stacks up is a different matter.

[CMXCVIII]

Minis rust! They're famous for rot! I have the horrible feeling that my Mini, although it looks pretty solid, has terrible holes in the floor! ...

 

That's the only explanation I'll be able to give that when I drove away from my drive, the compulsory black box must have fallen out and been left at home! 

 

I'm not quite so paranoid as to cry "be afraid, be very afraid!" but I am cautious enough to suggest we should be concerned whenever bureaucrats and governments pay attention to old fashioned, polluting, non-mainstream motor cars and seemingly offer to give away some concession!

 

Jon

[slpj24]

Be afraid be very afraid? Well it's not a matter of life and death per se. However it COULD very well spell death to my freedom to enjoy my classic, and cause me the loss of thousands of pounds. So, YES, I am afraid, very afraid.

 

Some of you may recall, that this is not the FIRST consultation on this subject by HMG.  Back in October 2014, HMG launched the prelude to this consultation, explaining that, by 2018 rules covering testing of vehicles have to meet EU directive 2014/45/EU.

 

The responses to the 2014 consultation was supposed to be followed up in 2015, by a FORMAL consultion, but has arrived NOW in 2016. It was on the responses to the 2014 survey, that the current options were derived.

 

You can see all the previous answers here. http://webcache.goog...lient=firefox-b

 

Here is just one that I picked. And since many are similar, I don't quite get how the DfT now thinks we might want mot exemptions and mileage limits. It might be, that no matter what we say, we'll get what we are given. Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

Gareth says:

October 24, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Of course you’re going to have many different arguments for and against depending on individual circumstances, mine for example as an mot tester I would lose income so perhaps that would cause me to say no to the proposal. However, forget about which side your on for whatever reason; recently I examined a modern day car for MOT and as I drove it and turned into the MOT bay the path that it took was not the normal one. On further examination I found the steering rack, which on this model was bolted to the front sub frame was insecure and allowed to move, this would cause the vehicle to be dangerous to the owner and possibly at some stage to other road users or pedestrians; on this vehicle the mot test worked as it does on many others.

 

After many years of vehicles being used on the road in Britain, in the 60’s it was decided to have some form of safety check, the question I would ask now is why was this?! I am going to assume perhaps some vehicles when cornering or hill decent or even going along lost their steering, brakes or even a wheel. On this subject, owners of vehicles before the 1st January1960 now don’t need to have them tested… if I was journeying in the depths of wales up and down hills in this type of vehicle with single circuit braking systems (i.e you have a fluid leak, you lose your brake pedal) then I am quite sure I would feel happier if the car had been checked over by a competent person within a recent period.

 

I think these vehicles should still have to be tested and meeting the criteria when the test first started: steering, brakes and possibly this day and age lighting equipment. A possible compromise being that the fee for this kind of test to be reduced, with modern day testers who have probably never seen kingpins or rod brakes, being better educated just as testers of today are with the technology side such as epb electronic parking brake systems.

 

On a side note I must add that the argument put forward of limited mileage policies regulated by the insurance or even as a result of usual usage of the owner would be highly questionable. Even though a vehicle may only cover 300 miles to 2000 miles as an example per year, does this stop deterioration taking place? No. As I am sure most are aware components nowadays are not what they used to be, rubber being one example! To those that suggest an MOT every two years or who are in agreement with the banishment all together, I would propose the question: would you want to be in an untested classic car with your family on a decent and a component fail leading to a fatality as a result of no regular inspection by a trained eye? Of course not. Some will argue that most classic car owners are enthusiasts; however this doesn’t mean all owners are mechanics by the same measure. I also know of many owners of classic cars who use their car as their only form of transport; with the result being the vehicle covering in excess of 10,000 miles a year.

 

Whenever I journey anywhere seeing a vehicle collapsed at the roadside missing a wheel has become a thing of the past; one reason for this I would say is the MOT test! Come on, whoever is making decisions, wake up, forwards not backwards!

 

A motorised vehicle using the public highway should have some form of inspection; not having road tax on some cars isn’t hurting anyone, not having an MOT test, COULD… If there’s a possibility you do not do it?!

Edited by slpj24, 06 October 2016 - 08:02 AM.

[Spider]

Apologies if I'm jumping in here from the side lines.

 

If my interjection is unwarranted as I'm an off-lander, please speak up and I'll shut up.

 

I read here part of the issue is the MOT Inspection?

 

Can I say, here in Aust, I think there's only two States that do similar inspections, all other states merely send a bill for annual registration and that's it.

 

I do like in one of the States where a yearly roadworthy Inspection is done before the Registration can be paid. The coff coff, roadworthy Inspection is rarely more than headlights, horn, indicators and brake lights. The Inspectors are supposed to jack the vehicles up, check wheel bearings, ball joints, steering, tyres etc etc. It's a bit of a joke and a inconvenience to be honest. Why? not that most car owners want to be dodgy or hide anything, but often finding the time to get these done, only to rock up (they don't take bookings) and be told they are busy and either you need to wait an hour or come back another day. And the inspection as already said, is a joke. The inspectors don't generally put a lot of effort in to them, as they know 95%+ cars are roadworthy and most people have things fixed, independent of any inspection. Yes, the odd idiot will try something on, but they are very much in the minority. How do I know that they are in the minority? By looking at statics from the other states where no inspections are done and talking to many who liver interstate and their attitudes towards keeping their cars roadworthy. I'll also point out that many cars here in Aust do big miles every year too and on roads which are generally not as good as those in the UK.

 

Also, most classic car owners do what ever is needed to keep their cars in good and roadworthy condition. Just read many pages of this forum in regards to that.

 

So, personally, I wouldn't worry too much at the loss of the MOT.