Is your machine roadworthy?

How many of us have our vintage machines serviced every year by a "qualified mechanic"?  It's totally unrealistic.  They don't even exist today.  Please stop this washing of what you evidently consider to be dirty linen in this forum which is visible to the public.  How may ksi are reported to be caused by poor maintenance of vintage machines?  Zero risk is impossible without removing every vehicle from the road.  Why are people on this forum so keen on imposing new restrictions on us after Government removed them?

"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." 

Given the pisspotical design and poor materials of the pre-Mk1A 850 battery straps, I suspect most Commando owners have been in contravention of this one from time to time. The rubber hardens and splits so quickly though that a weekly MOT would be necessary !

... a number of testing stations in the UK run by local authorities and the like, although I'm not sure if any do bikes. They have the advantage that they won't fail you for something and then charge you for fixing it as they don't do repairs.

https://motcentre.info/council-mot-near-me/

I do hope we don't have to suffer the annual MOT test again and have to watch our bikes being tested by people who do not understand the technology of our old bikes.
My Norton was set on fire by an MOT tester who didn't understand how to start a single, he said it kicked back when he tried to start it and it burst in to flames! It still bears the scars.
 I watched another MOT tester overheat a drum brake on an old bike while testing it on the rollers.
 An MOT is only relevant on the day of the test, a lot can happen to the bike over the next 12 months especially if it is ridden a lot. Even a bike that is rarely used can develop faults.
 It is the responsibility and a legal requirement of the owner to maintain a vehicle used on the road in a roadworthy condition. If you are not competent to do this you should find someone who is able to do this for you, just as you should for a modern vehicle. 

The important statistic is whether there is any evidence of a significant number of accidents or serious injury due to unroadworthy motorcycles.  And don't say "one is too many", since that would certainly clear us all off the road.  If you or one of your family have suffered actual harm caused by an unroadworthy machine, I could understand your personal enthusiasm for reinstating the MOT test.  I still might not support it on the basis of a tiny sample.  But I see no justification for claiming there is a problem without evidence of harm arising.

I cannot conceive how an independent safety scrutineering system might work.  The inspectors would be at such a high risk of civil liability law suits that their insurance premiums (and therefore our fees for such a service) would be astronomical.  Nobody scrutineers our machines at club events for this reason. 

It would be impossible for a scrutineer to identify potentially hazardous design changes since they would never have relevant design data for our machines.  Someone reports that a prewar car has an incorrect size component.  How could a scrutineer identify that 'needle in a haystack'?

If your campaign for another layer of bureaucracy gains momentum, it will be practically impossible to use any old machinery on the road.  And for those who can afford to pass the test criteria - if the unroadworthy condition of their machine is blamed for an accident, it will be no defence to offer up a piece of paper that says it was roadworthy last year.

If you are concerned about a machine you might buy, there is nothing to stop you taking it for an MOT test.  And you can take your machine to a test station and pay them the fee and let them run the test without providing any paperwork apart from the 'advisory' note.  If you know of riders whose insurance claims have been denied because of an unroadworthy machine, by all means report that fact for us to digest and act accordingly.  If you do not, then please don't disrupt our lives even more.

Can this topic be moved to the Members Only part of the. Forums. It's not a good look for the general public to see.
I guess that the New ls and Views chapter would be appropriate.

.. although the discussion is interesting and I'm not sure it needs to be behind closed doors. I've had enough of people prioritising a good look over content (not here).

hello,

as Requested by the insurance company i was with some years ago, they said I had to get an engineers report after an engine change from1500cc to 1800cc in my old Volvo Amazon. I tried 5 garages and none of them were interested in putting there name to it. Not as though it was dangerous or anything. I eventually found a firm who would carry out the check for me and said it was all ok . And supplied the paperwork to say as much. That was some while ago now. Wonder if it would be worse now . Wonder if we would we get the same attitude testing our old bikes because they may not have the relevant info to carry out an Mot.

Barry

"The majority AGREED"?  If they agreed, they were almost certainly presented with a leading question.  E.g. "Would it be safer?"  Then they would naturally say "yes".  But they wouldn't havd been questioned or even cared about consequences to those who own old machines.  Since old machines don't have anything like the safety features of modern machines, your approach would soon lead to all old machines being taken off the road.  And the majority simply won't care because it won't affect them.
The current policy was decided upon by the government of the day.  You clearly think you would have been a better Transport Minister.  Lots of people think they would make better Government Ministers.  But you were not even a member of Parliament then (or now).
Write to your MP if you must.  Start another organisation (such as MAG).  But please keep NOC out of it.  It is not the concern of NOC to campaign to alter government policy

And please can this thread be moved out of public view?

The quote referred to:-

"This exemption assumes that classic car owners maintain their vehicles meticulously and that these cars are used less frequently than modern vehicles' "

appears to be an assumption by an internet "journalist " at Regit Cars...a "Digital Car Management Service" registered with the F.S.A. so they clearly have some fingers in various pies and would like more legislation. 

My recollection was that with the increasing incorporation of Type Approval and emissions testing in the MOT and with computerised controls on how the testers were operating, it was simply no longer possible to test older vehicles under the mainstream system. MOT testers would lose their permits for not spending enough time checking the indicators on machines that don't have them. There simply isn't the data to test old vehicles to modern MOT standards. 

If accidents involving unroadworthy older vehicles are statistically insignificant, where is the justification in creating an expensive new network of test centres for old vehicles ? It's going to have to involve professional training and certification and the costs to the end-user, if passed on (as they will be) would be colossal. 

Old Shand has got me there.

I don't want to spend the time and money.

I meant to say that young Master Shand.

Some of us try to get by on a modest pension!

Having a Triumph engine, I hope they don't bring in a valve gear noise test.

A "cut down test"?  Exactly how far do you cut it down? 
Every corner at much over 15mph is a slightly scary experience.  And when it rains I walk down steep hills.

Owners that do there own maintenance when the 40 exemption was introduced was most probably far greater than it is now if the backlog for our workshop is anything to go by. Some new owners don't even have the tools or even the manual to maintain the bike they own these days. It would make sense that these older vehicles are checked in way that is appropriate to the age of the vehicle and not the current full MOT checklist which in areas would not apply. 

If the MoT exemption for old vehicles was based on assumptions, I would hope that any intention to reimpose the requirement for a test is not based on assumptions.

Is there an actual problem of accidents caused by old vehicles because they are not MoT tested and would that problem be eased by imposing a test requirement?

That would take a bit of statistical work and some tea leaf reading as well.

"Is there an actual problem of accidents caused by old vehicles because they are not MoT tested and would that problem be eased by imposing a test requirement?" as suggested above. Given the lack of any definitive data, and not even any anecdotal information, I suggest the answer is "No".

As usual however the more paranoid amongst us will always think "they're out to get us". I suggest this government has far more urgent issues to address than a few old fogeys riding around on superannuated machinery.

Sadly there is very little information on motorcycle accident statistics as all 2 wheelers get thrown into one pot with very little analysis of what size, age machine was involved etc. The is more evidence collected on helmets and head injury in accidents than the bike itself, the SHARP site has hidden away in the menus the details that lead to the latest helmet specs being introduced, very interesting for those with cheap helmet riding on the road and those using high end race approved helmets on the road.