Hi, long time browser, now joined because...

The correct testing standards are about as applicable to 40 year old vehicles as they are for 3 year old ones.
The MOT test is not fit for purpose in either case.
They are more concerned about crossing 'T's and dotting I's and looking like the good guys to the general public than they are with road safety nowadays.

Welcome to the forum. Two good, and differing opinions straight off. I think it would be fair to say there are a lot of testers feel frustrated by the dropping of these vehicles from the scheme, because we know that not all of them are vehicles of historical interest owned by people who look after them to hold their value. Too many of them are just old cars who's owners can now breathe a sigh of relief because now they don't have to spend the money to get them through the MOT every year.

castrolrob you forgot to mention trunions,

How dare you bring 'Rising Damp' into it, that was a good old laugh in the late 70's and 80's. Oh Miss Jones, Miss Jones 

The whole problem is with the people (both MP's and civil servants) who pass these laws. They are totally unqualified to even discuss most of the issues they are in charge of. When they're talking about defence they don't listen to serving officers, when it's law and order they don't listen to serving police or prison officers, when it's the NHS they don't listen to doctors or nurses and now when it's the MOT they don't listen to mechanics or I would say even the DVSA.
But they are very good at keeping their jobs!

One interesting point. Legally even if a vehicle is MOT exempt the Police can still book you for driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Actually that applies even if it has a valid MOT as we all know.
So, as I see it, the government is saying that you musn't drive a vehicle with defects but were going to take away the easiest way of making sure that you don't.
I think the point is that there are so comparatively few of these cars still on the road that those in authority are more or less saying that if there are some deaths they're going to be too few to worry about.
Sorry, but I'm in a cynical mood today!

In my opinion, some very valid points in a good thread.

From time to time I, along with several others of you, are asked for our views on many issues whether forthcoming or past. We spend time on our feedback which is rarely acknowledged and even less so heeded. I am totally convinced then that this is so the authors or their bosses can say ‘we consulted with the trade’. Sure, minor detail may be ‘tweaked’ but meaningful change? Rarely in my experience. And it is for these reasons that I feel less and less inclined to complete (their) meaningless surveys.

It’s not often now that I open my mouth on MoT issues unless I am reasonably sure I have a valid point.
Why bother then? I hear you asking; Well I actually derive some perverse pleasure in looking for the ‘hidden agendas’; the politics of the job. No, it’s not negative because I along with most of the rest of you can and do contribute useful stuff at NT and AE level so helping each other get the best out of the job

Often we are ‘steered’ into delivering (DVSA’s perhaps?) pre-determined outcomes disguised as being ‘our opinions’ And when the backlash comes, fingers get pointed. Remember the demise of VSI for example?

So when it comes to stuff like EU directives, 4-2-2, Historic Vehicles Testing, test fees and more, we, yes you and I, are going to be ignored.

It’s no secret that there is a changed Inspection Manual on the way. When it arrives ask yourselves how much influence you (in your various roles) had in those changes & you’ll see what I mean.



HOOTERS AXIOMS

Play by the rules
Be fair
Take what you can
If the worst can happen, it surely will
If you can’t change it, don’t worry about it