MOT

[dubscum]

just been reading Marco's MOT thread, the worries of it all and getting the old girl on the road on the road for another year (which I also get, Butterfly's in the waiting room etc) but rickyroo came up with the good point of why do we worry as its basic safety checks.

Which got me thinking, if MOT's were optional "would I MOT my bus"? and the simple answer is. No.

I do my own basic safety checks for long trips, I maintain it and know how it feels, I know just by driving if there something unsafe, but then again, If it wasn't law I would pay road tax (on my 77 land rover) or insure it either.

Am I the only one that feels that way?

 

[Clem]

No, if my van was MOT exempt, I wouldn't have a test voluntarily. Not for everyone , but I wouldn't.

 

[sparkywig]

I still would.
There's discussions on various classic and vintage forums about liability in the event of an accident, especially if the vehicle is modified. A valid MOT certificate proves that the vehicle is roadworthy without the expense of an engineer's report.

 

[RICH-I-AM]

Yeh, id get mine done yearly or bi-yearly.
However much you love your van most people dont realy know whats going on underneath.
But then im a tester so i probably see things different from most.

Rich

 

[rickyrooo1]

the current mot is only a guide that the vehicle was roadworthy at the time of testing, if you know your vehicle and are pretty competent in mechanics you'd be safe enough running without (should law allow) if it was optional i'd probably do one every couple of years as i only do about 1500 miles a year - maybe mot's should be based on miles rather than yearly anniversaries?

 

[marco]

I'd like a second opinion just incase I missed something,

 

[*Sam*]

I still would.
There's discussions on various classic and vintage forums about liability in the event of an accident, especially if the vehicle is modified. A valid MOT certificate proves that the vehicle is roadworthy without the expense of an engineer's report.

The MOT only shows that the vehicle was within the required standard at the time of the test,so unless you had crash as you drove out the MOT shop It would make no difference.

 

[67panel]

THE MOT IS TO THE MINIMUM STANDARD AND DOES NOT MEAN YOUR VEHICLE IS ROADWORTHY .my bus passed the test today----------I tested it,there on about not letting you do your own and also sales cars as thats the one they get the most compants about.tested a 1953 mg td the other day cos he wanted it checked,3 front wheel cylinders siezed solid!!!!!!!!and the master cyl push rod over adjusted by 10mm or more(car built by MG owners club member)thats 18k worth.

 

[sparkywig]

I still would.
There's discussions on various classic and vintage forums about liability in the event of an accident, especially if the vehicle is modified. A valid MOT certificate proves that the vehicle is roadworthy without the expense of an engineer's report.

The MOT only shows that the vehicle was within the required standard at the time of the test,so unless you had crash as you drove out the MOT shop It would make no difference.

That's the current legal requirement, your point is?

Imagine in a few years from now, and you're involved in a serious accident in a modified vehicle that doesn't legally require an MOT certificate. Where can you produce evidence that the vehicle is deemed to be of a suitable standard of road-worthiness?
So you've had a friendly garage check it over, or even do it yourself if you're competent, and maybe get a piece of paper to show that the vehicle is "safe".
But will it be recognised legally in the event of an incident? Will the garage take responsibility and legal liability for road-worthiness?

Don't forget that under The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, owners of vehicles that are to be exempted from the MOT test will still be legally required to ensure that their cars are safe, roadworthy and in a proper condition to be on the road.
How are you going to do that, other than submit to a test to Ministry standards......

It's also likely that MOT exempt vehicle insurance premiums will increase as well, so if this happens it’s likely owners will revert back to MOT tests to qualify for cheaper insurance, making the legislation a waste of time.

 

[marco]

Maybe a less stringent test for classic cars, testing essentials like brake efficiency and suspension/steering related items .

 

[K@rlos]

I take my bus a really strict MOT centre. Gives me a bit of pride knowing it passes there.

 

[*Sam*]

I still would.
There's discussions on various classic and vintage forums about liability in the event of an accident, especially if the vehicle is modified. A valid MOT certificate proves that the vehicle is roadworthy without the expense of an engineer's report.

The MOT only shows that the vehicle was within the required standard at the time of the test,so unless you had crash as you drove out the MOT shop It would make no difference.

That's the current legal requirement, your point is?

Imagine in a few years from now, and you're involved in a serious accident in a modified vehicle that doesn't legally require an MOT certificate. Where can you produce evidence that the vehicle is deemed to be of a suitable standard of road-worthiness?
So you've had a friendly garage check it over, or even do it yourself if you're competent, and maybe get a piece of paper to show that the vehicle is "safe".
But will it be recognised legally in the event of an incident? Will the garage take responsibility and legal liability for road-worthiness?

Don't forget that under The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, owners of vehicles that are to be exempted from the MOT test will still be legally required to ensure that their cars are safe, roadworthy and in a proper condition to be on the road.
How are you going to do that, other than submit to a test to Ministry standards......

It's also likely that MOT exempt vehicle insurance premiums will increase as well, so if this happens it’s likely owners will revert back to MOT tests to qualify for cheaper insurance, making the legislation a waste of time.

Perhaps i have not understood your first post, I read it as having an MOT will prove your vehicle is roadworthy at a date post the MOT.

My point is if you have an accident say 6 months after test and there is a dispute regarding your vehicle being roadworthy producing an MOT cert will not suffice.

A court of law couldn't prosecute an MOT tester and revoke the licence to test when the key part of evidence (the car) has been under the control of a person other than the MOT tester since they tested it.

I'm not suggesting for 1 minuet that the MOT should be removed is clearly a good tool in keeping cars safe.

 

[BARKING MARK]

I have to say I would definitely continue to get my Bus an MOT.
1. A second opinion on your vehicle has got to be a good thing
2.It WILL help to keep the insurance company happy
3.It will help to keep PC plod happy.
4.It helps to prove your annual mileage
5.Would you buy a Bus without an MOT?
Nuff said....