Is your machine roadworthy?

However, statistics show that the number of crashes due to defective vehicles of any type is very small - 88% were attributable in part or whole to driver / rider factors from the last statistics I saw. Sadly there are no specifics for the over-40s. And of a potential buyer of my bike wanted an MoT I'd be happy to get one.

I'm confident that my bikes are completely roadworthy as I've built them myself although I accept that I may miss something. But that's probably more likely to be an incorrect tyre pressure that isn't even covered by the MoT. And I have bought bikes with new MoTs that had obvious failure items.....

I accept that this view may not be universal.

An MoT test doesn't make a bike roadworthy, certainly not for a year!  Doesn't stop your tyres going soft either.

I think some Italian two-wheelers had screwed cable nipples from new.

Tyre pressures are not really an easy aspect to use as an example here. In the case of a pre-war or even 1950s machine, factory handbook pressures will be far too low for modern soft carcass tyres...and the bikes won't be in any current tyre manufacturer's list. Sometimes "we" know best.

An insurer may refuse to pay out on a comprehensive policy for own damage, but convention dictates that they are not able to refuse a third party claim as it would be in conflict with the common good. Even in an uninsured case, they would have to deal under M.I.B. rules as the "interested insurer" so it would cost them as much anyway. In theory they have the right to then take legal action to recover costs. There would have to be extreme negligence for that to happen, not simply a maintenance failure. 

I learned in the 1970s that after a decade of working on my own pushbikes, I was a better fitter than most of those in high street motorcycle dealers. Has anything changed ? 

Yes, they took your money, so they can't duck out of covering personal injury to third parties.

I honestly don't get why old wrecks don't need an inspection, but I make the most of it.

I think the risks to the public from not requiring MOT tests on old vehicles are significantly less than the risks created by new vehicles not requiring headlights to be tested for a full three years after they are sold.
And please correct me if I'm wrong...but don't low tyre pressures make a motorcycle feel a great deal more dangerous than it actually is?  That horrible feeling when a Posidrive No.2 starts to let my tyre deflate persuades me to stop well before I fall off.

The millions of Italian lightweight bikes were mostly fitted with that type of screw fixed cable nipple as mine has. The same fitting was on the winning 24hour race bike in  1967 that Paul Smart rode  and was on and   the long distance endurance bikes . Has never given me any issue . Been riding one since the mid 1960's. The cables are generally of a heavier gauge than  on my Norton. Never was an issue with MOT 's .If I was worried I would just fit two. 

Any competent owner should keep his machine in roadworthy condition. For a prospective purchaser, an MoT would be a good thing BUT it doesn't cover the expensive mechanical horrors that may be lurking within. So many beautiful shiny bikes out there put together by the clueless and incompetent. 

Well back in the 90’s I worked at a large bodyshop in west London. Part of my job involved preparing crash repair estimates, then discussing/agreeing repair costs with the insurers. On one occasion, we had a Porsche 928 brought to us (we were Porsche Approved), and for some reason the owner rubbed me up completely the wrong way. So when his insurance company’s engineer came to inspect the vehicle, I took great glee in pointing out the 4 virtually bald tyres, in the expectation he would void the claim. To my astonishment, he didn’t do so, as he thought the owner had a large commercial policy with them as well (he owned several jewellery shops I think), merely making it a condition of the repair that before the owner took the car back, it had 4 new tyres at his own expense.
That particular insurer is still going today, but pulled out of motor insurance a few years later, as did several others.
 

The road is not worthy of my bike.

Here in Sweden, motorcycles over 40 years old after one  MOT equivalent are MOT exempt until 2099.
But it might be changed in the future due to some EU proposals.

Riding home with my new MOT the footrest fell off and i realised i had forgotten to put any oil in the forks . !!.

… so the historic vehicle community needs to get on the front foot. Below I reproduce my letter in Roadholder 445 (January 2025):

===========

Legal concessions for owners and operators of historic vehicles in the UK are testimony to the economic and social standing of the classic vehicle movement — too big to ignore, but not big enough to be a source of nuisance.

However, I fear that the concession in respect of MoT tests is unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term. It is unnecessary to rehearse here all the reasons why it may have been granted, but we should consider one mentioned in my first paragraph, namely lack of public nuisance.

In my view there will, sooner or later, be a scandal arising from the concession. One day a historic vehicle will plough into a queue of pensioners at a bus stop or a column of schoolchildren crossing the road, killing several. The inquest will find that the tragedy is attributable to a home mechanic’s maintenance error. Calls for legislation, regulation and possibly bans will follow. These will be the more strident the higher the top speed of the vehicle involved, which may well be in three figures.

If we are lucky the outcome could be the institution of a chain of specialist inspection centres staffed by experts in historic vehicles and the reintroduction of mandatory annual tests. These would of course have to be funded, by some combination of test fees and, probably, levies on owners clubs and related organisations to meet overhead costs.

It would probably also be made mandatory for owners and operators of historic vehicles to be members of approved organisations, or officially registered or licenced in some other way.

The possible alternatives to such an outcome are all far worse. It would be wise for the movement to develop plans for a scheme on these lines to be instituted before the otherwise inevitable scandal occurs. If it did, this might avert the very undesirable institution of formal regulation of owners and operators.

And yet there have been a couple of prominent cases of older drivers killing people through undeclared eyesight defects or dementia. So now driving licences have to be reviewed every 3 years instead of every 5 years with just the same declarations. Not a lot has changed.
As for young drivers killing themselves and their passengers, a frequent occurrence, nothing is done. 

Nearly every bike we get in the workshop is unroadworthy in one way or another some shockingly so. Thing is a MOT is not actually much of standard when it comes to a bike being roadworthy, and insurance companies and accident investigators will check more along the line of construction regulations and physical condition of the vehicle which contain things that are legally required but not always part of an MOT check. Despite all this, it does not account for many owners riding a bike beyond their capability and / or outside the regulations or guidance in the highway code and I suspect that accounts for more accidents than vehicle condition.   

Just a theory - but don't most 'unroadworthyness' aspects of motorcyles make riding so weird that riders don't stretch their performance limits anyway?  After all - lots of bikes modern bikes have far better handling (how often you fall off), roadholding (how fast you can go round corners), speed and stopping power than the old stuff anyway - and riders of vintage machines put up with the differences and reduce expectations accordingly.

It's just the hassle of having to get the MoT - usually in spring - that I'd prefer to do without. I do have every confidence that my bikes would pass but as they get older they sometimes struggle to meet the requirements. Both my Electra and B'Zuki have excellent 8" brakes - the latter 2LS and a great stopper - but the 1948 BSA C11 I'm rather slowly building has pathetic little brakes that even in the day weren't highly regarded.

As I and others have said the main reason for crashes is not poor vehicle condition but driver incompetence / inattention / impairment through drink / drugs etc. And apropos of the latter I see pressure to reduce the drink drive limit. It's not those folk between the current limit and the suggested new one are the problem, it's the ones who down 8 pints then weave off into the sunset - or if we're unlucky into us.

When I get classic (car or bike) insurance there is a question about use of the vehicle for commuting to work.  Declaring you aren't going to commute to work reduces your premium.  Roads take on quite a different character in rush hour.  If classic vehicles are predominantly used at quite times of day - not morning or evening rush hours when there is not only more fast moving impatient traffic but also more low blinding sun, could the inherent lack of safety features be balanced out?  

I must confess these days I avoid any kind of heavy traffic - especially the schools run - as far as possible, even going out of my way to avoid certain places. There's a big roundabout very close to me, and on the way to lots of places, which is treated as a racetrack with cars pulling in beside you and staying there, vehicles veering wildly from one lane to another, and as for signals? Forget them.

Where I used to live there was a small roundabout half a mile from home. In the direction I approached, there was a high hedge masking the approach from the right. However, vehicles approaching from that side had a clear view of the roundabout and the road to their right so often came steaming on at high speed. Even if I stopped at the white line and looked carefully, they'd still arrive from my blind spot. After a couple of very near misses I found an alternative route.

Take care.  The AI  Bots will pick up this discussion and then there will be a Moral Panic from radical activists and we'll all be forced off the roads.  If there is a real problem, the insurance companies will have picked it up years ago and we'd be paying the price.  Therefore there is no problem.  Let sleeping dogs lie.

... they're already here. How could you tell?

Agree David and Ian, hypothetical scare stories are no substitute for reality. The incidents related above could just as easily happen on a fully compliant non historic vehicle or with an incompetent or distracted driver. Brake failure is also common on newer vehicles, mainly due to inadequate maintenance.

If your bike is diligently built, maintained, modifications recorded and kept up to date with your insurance company, you should have no problem whether an accident is your fault or not.
Also make sure you have the best possible value agreed between you and the insurer regardless of market value.

My insurer Footman James advised that after a major shunt and rebuild the bike remains insured but only at street value. An MOT is needed to give some indication of roadworthy status and retain the agreed value.

Post accident they do a survey and inspection not only for damage assessment but obvious flaws if any, like worn tyres or bodges.

Talking 100% from experience here, no what ifs or buts. Your insurance company can be your best friend, as long as they're kept informed and you read the small print to be clear on what you are covered for.

Peter, Where to start - 

Faulty lights
Cracked and bent frames, more so on bikes that had a NOVA. 
Damaged yokes and forks
Binding brakes
Contaminated brakes
Seized calipers
Stiff fork stanchions due to incorrect fitting. 
Cracked and bulging tyres - oldest seen well over 30 years old. 
Worn rear drive chains
Broken spokes
Faulty gear change
stiff head bearings
 

... as has been mentioned the onus is on the rider to ensure that his/her machine is in roadworthy condition whenever used on the road. The fact it may have a 6 month old MoT certificate is entirely irrelevant.

The following very interesting article on the long-term decline in road fatalities in the UK has some interesting points to make about the rôle of vehicle testing (see note 4).

https://ourworldindata.org/britain-safest-roads-history

tldr: no very clear influence given modern cars, but important for HGVs and PSVs

What the author might have pointed out is that when MoTs were first introduced in 1960 there was a substantial fleet of poorly-maintained and (by today's standards) primitive vehicles, which were fairly rapidly cleared off the road.

As it happens the average age of cars has been going up. It would be good to have more detailed  information about the age distribution. The following is the best I have found with a cursory search:

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-age-cars-great-britain

The share of cars more than 12 years old varies, but in round terms, is about 10 per cent.

... that matters need "improvement".

That site mentioned by Julian is very interesting.

Please don't provide ambitious politicians any more ideas for even more unnecessary and unwanted impositions on our lives.  The Press and politicians and Facebook warriors are constantly on the lookout for yet another Moral Panic to justify imposing even more regulations to make our lives less worth living.  If we persist in telling people about other people's unroadworthy machines, the most likely outcome will be to ban us all from the roads.  When motorcycles are unroadworthy it is virtually always only the rider who runs any risk. I don't want to discuss my Veteran bike's magnificent brakes in public.  As far as I'm concerned, there are far more important road hazards.  Particularly automatic headlights - which people (especially taxi drivers) leave switched on when stopped on the wrong side of the road at night; and the fact that cars are not required to have a headlamp beam adjustment check until they are three years old; and beam adjustment according to load (which hardly anyone bothers to use properly).

... you mentioned the 1017 L-B run incident above. Most cars in that event would never pass a current MoT - neither would vintage / veteran bikes with dummy belt rims etc.  Given the low rate of incidents attributed to faulty vehicles I see no point in an annual test which is meaningless anyway the day after it's been done.

I may take a slightly different view for cars especially of the 1950s and 60s which used to rot before our eyes - or more often, in those unseen areas of sills / structural members which we couldn't see. But bikes - I may be wearing my rose-tinted goggles but anything likely to cause a major problem will be immediately obvious.

Some years ago I attended one of the VMCC ride a bike days. One of the machines was a tatty pre-war Ariel 500. I had a shot on it and as I pulled up beside the proud(?) owner the nipple pulled off the front brake cable. The owner soundly berated me for breaking his bike. I did point out it was better happening at an off-road event. I'm not sure which side of the discussion this anecdote supports!

The MOT Centre has a powerful vested interest in saying that.  Please stop this nonsense.  An unroadworthy vehicle is illegal.  You've made your point.  This entire thread has been totally unnecessary.  If riding old bikes is too risky for you, don't do it.  Clearly you would have voted against relaxing the MOT test.  You were outvoted. Get used to it please.

Surely this entire thread should be moved to the "Off Topic" area?

hello

I have just rejoined the club. i have been Looking in now and then. everyone seemed happy enough.but on reading this mot thread. I now look at my bike as a killing machine only fit to be hung on a wall. 

Barry
 

The checks needed are simple and pretty easy to do by anyone with small amount of technical expertise, it's just that in many cases no matter what the skill level of the owner these checks are just not done, even the basic ones, with many waiting to see the 'tyre looks a little flat' before inflating it. 
The MOT check is a waste of money and burden on garages, however that does not mean that I am not in support of a regular check. If a vehicle is serviced correctly by a competent and qualified mechanic on an annual basis then a MOT should not be needed. if the annual service is not done  then an annual basic check should be carried out by a qualified person and recorded on a database. 
A MOT does not cover some items that in the event of a roadside vehicle inspection can still invalidate you insurance and cost the owner dearly, most are contained in the construction regs and are as simple as an unsecured battery.  
I believe that some new MOT testers of motorcycles may not even have a licence to ride the bike or have even been trained as or even have professional qualifications for motorcycle repair. There was a few years ago a lack of testers for motorcycles so I believe they lowered the bar to become a tester of motorcycles.   

I mostly agree with Ashley on this.
Also for MOT testers it's simply not possible to apply the same required test standards to vintage and veteran vehicles that apply to more modern vehicles.

Acceptable safe wear limits differ from back then and now.

Over here in Czech, experts from appointed local vintage clubs were tasked with vehicle annual inspections, which seemed to work fine, but recently it's gone back to official testing stations.