MOT a thing of the past?

[Tommy xs]

apparently their looking at removing the MOT test for bike's over 30 years old

http://www.dft.gov.uk/classic-mot/motorbikes/

[drewpy]

doing to humans soon to save money

[meatloaf]

doing to humans soon to save money

In that case I'm fucked

[slice]

I have always thought it was daft to not MOT old vehicles as the older they get the more bit's drop off, well it's happening to me, and I have just sold the XJ 32 years old FFS! and my NEW bike is only 24 years old ! Motorcycles are different to cars in that they really are mostly built for speed and the old XJ would do 100MPH + if pushed and I don't know about you but the thought of that speed on a machine that has no test is to say the least worrying. Perhaps I'm in a minority here but personally I will be taking my bike in for a test regardless even if I can't say it's MOT'd I can wave a bit of paper saying it's been looked at.

PS BUGGER I just reread that and I am now officially my Dad FFS

[DirtyDT]

Speed is one thing but momentum of weight is another. Vehicles made before 1960 are already exempt. How many times have you brought a vehicle that had a MOT to find something scary about it that needed fixing. I don't have a problem with 30plus year old bikes not having to sit an MOT. I do have a problem with any bike I haven't had a good look around before I ride it.

[Ttaskmaster]

Much wittering about how owners are far more knowledgable about their vehicle than the MOT tester, how owners have meticulous attention to detail and do pre-ride checks with the pedanticism of a pre-flight checklist, how the old vehicle is proven more mechanically sound, etc etc...

Humans are fallible. People miss things. Fact.

The MOT is your second pair of eyes and if you're taking it to someone that doesn't know enough about your bike to test it, you're doing something wrong!!

[drewpy]

depends on the amount of knowledge of the bike owner.

I always check stuff on the bike and would happily take it for an MOT anytime during the riding season,I just couldn't ride it like I do otherwise.

Slice, you not heard of a 1928 Brough Superior? 130mph enough? or what about a 1950 Vincent black shadow! 125 mph

[meatloaf]

Speed is one thing but momentum of weight is another. Vehicles made before 1960 are already exempt. How many times have you brought a vehicle that had a MOT to find something scary about it that needed fixing. I don't have a problem with 30plus year old bikes not having to sit an MOT. I do have a problem with any bike I haven't had a good look around before I ride it.

DT I know that MOT's are not perfect but there are some riders out there that have probably had their lives saved by MOT testers who have found scary things, I have never had a bike fail an MOT because all my bikes were regulary seviced and well maintained but I have seen bikes, cars, vans etc out there that should not of been on the road because of the state they were in. Unfortuantly not all owners care enough about the state of their machines and I think MOT's are a safty net that we need.

[dt502001]

Well we only have to MTO once when you first buy a vehicle here in Ontartio for vehicals under 3500lbs gvw over that annual inspection but in Alberta they don't even do it at all. I for one would like to see annual inspections for every vehicle,but our Gov is only intrested in emmission testing and that only applies depending on the density of the population area you live in,in a small town not far from me if you live on the north side of the street you dont need a etest but your neighbour who lives on the south side does And if your vehicle is built befor 1988 your exempt or it's a farm vehicle.

What scares me most is people with no idea of what they are doing installing parts,like brakes then driving to the shop because they got it wrong and want me to fix it. I have seen it all from parts installed backwards to upside down or better yet they show up with a hand full of parts they couldn't figure out how to reinstall.

If your MTO inspector dosent know more about your vehicle than you do he/she has no right to be in bussines,we have very strict rules when it comes to a MTO inspection and if the inspector misses or lets something go then they face fines of 5000.00 or more.So where you guys get advisories here it would just fail period no if and or but about it.

The MTO does road side checks and will pull any vehicle over esp if it is looking unsafe and pull the plates off if it found to be unsafe,as well any mechanic who is working on a vehical finds defects ,by law must inform the MTO if the faut was not repaired,even if it not related to the work being done.And the POPO don't mind pulling you over and handing out fines for things like lights tires mufflers excessive smoke.

I guess the foward thinking here is if you can keep a car on the road for 30 yrs without it rusting away then you must be taking very good care of it.

[DirtyDT]

DT I know that MOT's are not perfect but there are some riders out there that have probably had their lives saved by MOT testers who have found scary things, I have never had a bike fail an MOT because all my bikes were regulary seviced and well maintained but I have seen bikes, cars, vans etc out there that should not of been on the road because of the state they were in. Unfortuantly not all owners care enough about the state of their machines and I think MOT's are a safty net that we need.

I fully understand that but changing the MOT rules does not change anything regarding defective vehicles being used on the road.

473,564 drivers were handed penalty points for driving without insurance between 2010 and 2013. How many of them had MOT's?

[shambles1980]

I understand not needing tax.. but no mot?

I mean id be happy to save the money. But i think id be happier to know that some one els also thinks my bike is road safe and may spot something i didnt think about..

dry rot tyres for instance. maybe i decide well i can get 200 more miles out of those then have a blow out and really regret my choice "if i was lucky enough to get the chance too"
Having to have an mot however would make me look at the tyre and say well its a shame it has some cracks but it wont pass an mot like that. so buy some new ones..

now personally i wont ride a bike with dry rot on the tyres, but a lot of people seem to think they are fine. and a mot is the only reason they change them if the tread looks fine.

if its a matter of they wont pass the emissions test or similar. then cut that part out of the test.

[obriens65]

My CB750 failed it's test because the petrol tap seal had started to perish an fuel was seeping out. I hadn't noticed it because it wasn't dripping yet just wet around the seal. If the tester hadn't spotted it that could have been petrol dripping on a hot engine.

On the other hand the TR1 failed it's last MOT because the bracket that holds the mirror on had cracked and my chemical metal repair wasn't 'adequate'.

There are good things and bad things about the current test for older bikes. I think a test is necessary but the age of the bike should determine the criteria for what's tested.