| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Allan Bentley
United Kingdom
257 Posts |
 Posted - 20/11/2012 : 14:09:06
|
George.
My experience of insurance is that the underwriters make decisions on a risk basis. In the case of motor insurance it is down to the driver to ensure that the vehicle he is conducting is roadworthy. If stopped by the police or in the case of an accident the MOT is only a point check. Try passing the buck back onto your friendly MOT station.
Hoever the current software used in a test station will record the result on the DVLA data base against your Reg number or any other number (chassis) you care to give them at the time. This is how you re register a car who's identity has been lost.
I think George has a point and that it is good idea to have a test station look the car over perhaps every 2 years. Certainly before some bright spark decides to fully automatate the UK test stations, as they did some years ago here in France. The vibration system to check damper performance is impressive but not if you are MMM MG! However it produces a textbook plot each time for my 1971 MGB which is very encouraging.
My P Type was tested last year in the UK for the first time in 15 years, and they did not notice that the nut was loose on the front mounting eye of the NS rear spring. The split pin had been worn/cut through allowing the castle-nut to loosen, which can happen on the near side as the stud has a RH thread!
'Righty Tighty - Lefty Loosy' as my wife told me years ago.
Allan
|
 |
|
|
Mark Sellick
United Kingdom
56 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2012 : 17:24:47
|
Hi All,
I thought this might make you smile.
Thanks to the abolition of the MOT test for pre-1960 cars, I've just been able to tax my TC online with DVLA. It hasn't been MOT'd since August 2010, is currently jacked up having its brakes re-lined, and needs a bald tyre replaced.
Absurd!
Regards,
Mark (currently MMM-less!)
|
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6128 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2012 : 18:08:30
|
| Absurd? But all you did was tax your car. That says nothing at all about its road worthiness. |
|
|
|
Keith Wallace
United Kingdom
367 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2012 : 18:47:08
|
Mark
if my last two MOT tests for the PB are anything to go by, it would still have had a good chance of it passing the MOT!
Regards
Keith |
|
|
|
Mark Sellick
United Kingdom
56 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2012 : 08:45:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Johnston
Absurd? But all you did was tax your car. That says nothing at all about its road worthiness.
Absolutely, Simon. It isn't currently roadworthy. But the fact that I could tax it without it being roadworthy is why I consider it absurd.
Of course, I'm sensible enough not to drive it until the brakes and tyres are sorted, but the fact remains that I now could do so without the car being subject to the scrutiny of another.
How long before our right to use our "old" cars is curtailed.....
|
|
|
|
i.thomson
United Kingdom
408 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2012 : 13:11:40
|
"But the fact that I could tax it without it being roadworthy is why I consider it absurd"
Why? Surely the absurd, or rather puzzling, thing is why these two totally unconnected things should be linked. That they have been (along with insurance)is nothing more nor less than the reflex reaction of some bureaucrat or politician who thinks we are all out to fiddle the system. We are not and as you state, you are not. It would appear from your point above that you also believe that although you are trustworthy the problem is everybody else, which I would respectfully suggest is why the originators of this linking did so. I myself resent being treated this way and would suggest that so treating people is creating a motorist who drives to the rules rather than using their own judgement and is ever more disinclined to take responsibility for themselves. As Allan Bentley, above, states the MOT is only a check point, another thing to do you for if stopped. The important thing is, and the more serious charge as I am sure you will agree, is whether or not the car is roadworthy and it has always been so. On having an accident which is down to them not maintaining the car properly the first thing the average motorist is likely to say is "but it was OK at the MOT". Without the MOT there is nowhere to hide. It is clear that it is our fault if something happens. The insurance companies have always held to this and will, I am sure, continue to. Not that I would advocate doing away with testing. On the contrary, If we do not have the expertise ourselves it is foolish to trust to chance and even if we have the expertise a second pair of eyes is always likely to spot things we we have missed. It is just that this test does not have to be the a point check it has become, it can now, for us,return to being the actual safety check which I would argue the MOT has gradually moved away from being.
Regards
Ian Thomson
PS. And just what has this to do with our right to use our "old" cars being curtailed. To my mind it is making it easier...or maybe you think that we will all rush to drive dangerous machines and thus end up with even more restrictions?
|
Edited by - i.thomson on 27/11/2012 16:51:47 |
|
|
|
Nick Feakes
USA
3374 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2012 : 13:46:51
|
This sort of linking is illogical but was invoked as a simple way to make people get an MOT at all. I seem to remember it began with cars over 10 years old?
I think it would be better to make it compulsory to have the driver (not the car) insured against risks to other people and property and be required to display those documents when driving whichever car he happened to be in. Should I wish to insure the car against other losses then that is a matter for me. Insurance rates could be set according to the age of the driver and only allow certain classes of car to be driven signified by the colour of the insurance card. Anyone driving without a licence or insurance would be immediately recognisable.
Nick |
|
|
|
i.thomson
United Kingdom
408 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2012 : 17:18:55
|
"This sort of linking is illogical but was invoked as a simple way to make people get an MOT at all"
I am sure that this is true Nick and illustrates what I said about the tendency of Bureaucrats and Politicians to believe that we are not to be trusted (though recent happenings here in UK prove that they are not to be trusted either). My fading memory tells me that the MOT linking was not there from the beginning though I recollect that it did start at 10 years. I think the linking came in around the time we became allowed to re-tax cars at the post office. Your ideas about insuring the person rather than the vehicle are interesting though I cannot see them coming to pass (luckily). There is an inexorable move towards policing through technology linked to the vehicle and a plethora of databases which are in themselves badly policed. Unless we all have an RFID chip implanted I cannot see the move to insuring the person being possible. As far as having variable degrees of insurance cover is concerned then I believe that we already have with (in UK) it being possible to insure either fully comprehensive or against third party risks only. Legally it used to be the case here that to satisfy the law we only had to insure against injury to the person, what I believe was termed Road Traffic Act cover or some such. Perhaps someone with either a longer memory or some expertise in this area could confirm or deny this. Any move towards insuring the person frightens me as it would be too liable to "mission creep" and we would inevitably wind up having to insure against all manner of non vehicle related risks, or am I being too alarmist.
Regards
Ian Thomson |
|
|
|
Pat B
United Kingdom
66 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 10:30:01
|
| Did anyone see the letter from the DVLA in Safety Fast, page 42? Refering to the transfer of registrations from pre-60's cars, this will only be permitted subject to passing a 'voluntary MOT'??....doesn't that become a mandatory MOT if it cannot be done without it? Furthermore, the worrying inference is that ONLY at time of reg transfer the car is required to be deemed legally 'roadworthy'. Otherwise, the requirement could simply be to have the car inspected at a local DVLA office as in the passed. |
|
|
|
Allan Bentley
United Kingdom
257 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 11:08:56
|
There may not be local offices by the end of the year. This route will be a lot less hassle for us, but very sad for the helpful local office staff, who will loose their jobs.
Allan |
|
|
|
leckstein
USA
411 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 12:03:24
|
As our American members know, most US states do not carry out any inspections for cars over 25 years old, and our insurance premiums are extremely low if you declare the car will be used for limited miles (and you have a different daily driver)
Even our modern cars are no longer inspected in New Jersey if they are less than 5 years old. Older, everyday cars, are inspected for polution emissions only.
With regard to age, most insurance companies charge premiums in part based on the drivers age. Usually a higer premium for under 30 or over 70. I resent this as I just reached the latter, and I am informed that reaching that age prohibits me from renting a car in Europe, although I drive much better than most 35 year olds. And I have driven all over Europe and Great Britain many times without incident. So to me the age issue is arbitrary.
I do agree that in the end the safety of our cars is up to us, and no one else.
Mike L |
|
|
|
Pat B
United Kingdom
66 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 12:10:07
|
| Allan, only a suggestion to take the car to the local DVLA office. They could have said to take the car to an MOT station for someone to walk round the car and confirm that the car arrived under it's own steam rather than have to prove that it passed a 'voluntary MOT'. What if it fails the MOT and so if it wasn't for the reg transfer the owner would never have known of any impending failure / defect? Just doesn't sound like a well thought-out process. |
|
|
|
RYates
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 17:12:05
|
Regarding Mike's comment about not being able to rent a car in England after age 70: I too have been somewhat worried about this upcoming event for me - however, I have a very good MG friend, age 75, who travels to England and rents a car every year and has never had a car rental company refuse him a rental or add a premium based on his age. So, what gives? Is the magic age perhaps 80?
Reed |
|
|
|
leckstein
USA
411 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2013 : 20:37:50
|
Reed, the age thing is what I was told. I might be wrong. I certainly am less of a risk in GB having driven a TC and a PA for years. Much less risk than an American tourist age 40 , who has never driven on the left with the steering wheel on the right.
Mike L |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
