No more MOT's for A110's and some A310's

[BIG_MVS]

Check this out:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... c-interest

Can't say I agree with it to be honest but will be less hassle for most.

[johnb]

I'd prefer to still take mine every year if only for the opportunity to have a good look underneath whilst it's on the lift. Also for the brake and emissions tests which I can't do at home. Also good to have a second pair of experienced eyes (at least at where I go) giving the car a once over.

[stephendell]

Suits me fine but think they should have followed the full EU directive and gone for the 30 year exemption which would have included the GTAs

What's funny is that the majority of people canvassed were AGAINST the 40 year rule but they did it anyway. Shows they can ignore the EU and the public when they feel like it!

[stephendell]

This would have excluded some of the GTAs though even if they had gone for the 30 years:

The criteria for substantial change
A vehicle will be considered to have been substantially changed (and hence not to have been historically preserved or maintained in its original state and to have undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components) if it meets one of the following criteria. Such vehicles will not be considered of historical interest and will be continue to be subject to vehicle testing.
Criterion 1
If a vehicle has a power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original design, unless such a modification took place before 1988.
Criterion 2 If a vehicle:
 has been issued with a registration number with a ‘Q’ prefix; or
 is a kit car assembled from components from different makes and model of
vehicle; or
 is a reconstructed classic vehicle as defined by DVLA guidance; or
 is a kit conversion, where a kit of new parts is added to an existing vehicle, or
old parts are added to a kit of a manufactured body, chassis or monocoque bodyshell changing the general appearance of the vehicle.

[mettersl]

reconstructed classic...that's most GTA and 610....

It is beggers belief.
What makes anyone who has an ounce of H&S or Risk assesment experience think that the oldest of all cars don't need inspection.
They have suffered the longest neglect and decay and have the poorest manufactured parts from the Victorian ages of technology.
Anyone driving a car that has not been inspected by a Pro deserves to come out of an accident with injuries and litigation cases.
Oh, at least it is Friday now.

Been involved with American cars and hotrods for years, seen these discussions word for word repeatedly.

The rules are almost the same here in Norway, cars over 50 are exempt, newer cars are MOT'd every 2 years, and if they are of special interest, once they get to 30 it drops to every 5 years.

As a rule, people do tend to look after their classics, and most responsible owners still have them checked once a year anyway at start of season.
Most professionals will tell you that an MOT isn't worth the paper it's printed on anyway, and that there are cars less than 30 years old on the road in FAR worse condition.

I used to be an MOT tester, and I can tell you, some of the daily drivers I've seen would make your hair curl.
Corrosion, welded suspension springs, tyres down to the cords, you name it.
There's a far higher proportion of dangerous modern cars on the roads doing moon mileages

[stephendell]

If you read the consultation it's based on accident data. Essentially hardly any 40 yr old cars cause fatal accidents and not many 30yr old either. It's all modern stuff.

Fair comment.