Can we still rely on the MOT test?

The warning lights are notoriously unreliable. So often they are repaired at great cost to the motorist only to find the various components they are supposed to warn about are found to be working satisfactorily. Manufacturers need to rectify these problems as part of a recall procedure, perhaps then they would take greater care in the design of these warning lights systems!!

I agree, David.

I would like to see at least a ten year warranty on car electronics, which should be incredibly reliable. They are not subject to wear or abuse, like many components of cars, so I do not think my request is unreasonable. Sensors are inherently less reliable but it is generally easy to diagnose problems and replace faulty sensors.

Some classic cars are extremely well maintained and a credit to their owners, but nowadays these cars are often bought by people who know very little about cars. Sadly, it is not easy to determine which will apply for any car and I believe that they should be tested annually, even if there is a discount because there is a lot less to be tested than with a modern car.

Modern cars are made to a much higher standard than ‘Classics’, both in terms of safety with crumple zones, brakes, road holding and of course tyres. When an emergency of any sort occurs ‘Classics’ are not only more prone to causing passenger injury but more dangerous to other road users.It is appalling to suggest that these vehicles road worthiness should be entrusted to amateurs, they need to be checked to the very highest standards of the day by experts. An MOT is essential.

David

I agree that classic cars should be tested but I’m far more worried about the dangers of people driving modern, fast cars that may have had a dangerous fault for months. As Which? surveys have shown, sometimes the professionals don’t manage to identify simple but dangerous faults.

I would like to put this in perspective. I think it is appalling that most people give little thought for the condition of their car until the next MOT is due. Look at the failure rates.

I love older cars, I think my next car will be a pre 1960s, fed up of having to MOT my car all the time!

Never mind about there not being many on the road. It only takes one badly maintained vehicle to cause injury or death. Having said that, I do realise that the majority of road traffic accidents are caused by bad driving habits.

Cars that are infrequently used (which applies to many classic cars) are more prone to binding brakes, though this can occur even with modern cars. Feel the temperature of brake disks occasionally and if one is hot then that suggests that the calliper is sticking. In extreme cases the centre of the wheel will get warm.

I agree about the reassurance provided by passing an MOT.

I was wondering whether it was possible to pay to have an MOT-equivalent test of your own volition even if the vehicle is exempt from the mandatory regulation. Insurance companies might like to incentivise this – after all, every car is required to be roadworthy at all times.

I believe there are some stations / garages that offer what they call a PRE MOT.
It is ridiculous for all the reasons mentioned here to exempt any vehicle from the MOT.

Yeap Nicholas, 3 years ago my Volvo failed on ABS light. I tracked it to dry solder joints in the ECU. Cured it myself.

I very much agree with you about the owner’s responsibility, though that should extend to anyone who uses a car.

I believe most motorists think that their only responsibility is to have whatever work is necessary to allow their car tol pass the annual MOT. My evidence comes from speaking to people and seeing cars with faulty lights, illegal tyres and other obvious problems. If these faults are not attended to then it seems unlikely that more serious problems will be dealt with or even looked at.

I agree that most classic cars are owned by enthusiasts who are competent and look after their vehicles very carefully. The problem is that an increasing number of these cars are owned by people without these skills, either to drive or to exhibit at shows.

I know a chap who bought one of these old cars to drive during the summer months. He knew nothing about cars. His brakes failed, and he and his wife had a narrow escape. His wife refused to travel in the car again and he drove the car little more, admitting that old vehicles were probably better in the hands of those who know how to look after them. Eventually he sold it to the person he had bought it from.

David,
“proper inspection by professionals with access to the appropriate testing equipment” ???
And what appropriate testing equipment would that be then? These classics don’t have ABS, ESP or any of the other fancy gizmos that people in modern cars depend upon sometimes for their lives (and the life of that child you mention).
The only equipment you need to check for a wore kingpin is a jack, and that applies to just about all suspension and/or steering joints. Test centres do have equipment to check braking efficiency and balance but really that is so the tester doesn’t have to actually road test the car. Brakes either work or they don’t and uneven braking makes the car pull to one side, it’s not rocket science. Test centres also have emmission level testing equipment but these classics are already exempt unless they issue clouds of smoke, so no need for that. Corrosion is a visible (or probe with a screwdriver) type of test, so again no special equipment needed there either.
So as I said what “appropriate testing equipment”??

Remember the roadworthiness of the vehicle is the drivers responsibility regardless of their technical knowledge, and for that matter regardless of the age of the vehicle, so people who know nothing about cars who buy and drive classics are very irresponsible.

I have a couple of classics that I rebuilt I’m happy to carry the responsibility of road worthiness for these cars because they are road worthy and they are kept road worthy, otherwise they most certainly will not be venturing out onto the road. MOT testing them once a year changes nothing and achieves nothing.
It seems that in a very uncharacteristic move someone in government has employed a bit of joined up thinking and has realised this. Perhaps there is hope after all. Now perhaps this will continue and the VED “tax” exempt status for historic vehicle class can move forward from 1972 to say 1982 and annually there after?

Chris
I respect your ability but I take issue with a couple of points that you make. You say that brakes either work or they don’t. That’s obviously not true because they can operate with reduced efficiency, which is one of the reasons for measuring brake efficiency in the MOT test. A weak rear brake may not make a car pull to one side. I have had a two year old car where the main dealer found a problem with a rear brake binding during a service. That was fault was not apparent or I would have attended to it. That is one reason why garages use a rolling road for brake efficiency tests.

I agree that looking after an old car is not rocket science but it does require judgement on certain matters, for example the degree of wear and the extent of corrosion.

With the exception of the emissions test, a competent DIY mechanic can equally well carry out most tests to ensure that a modern car will pass its MOT, but again there may be some judgement needed if wear is detected.

If I set you an exam I would not want you to mark your own paper. 🙂

I hope your main dealer is a bit more thorough than ones I have used. On one occasion the Service Manager denied that a job was part of a service so I showed him the manufacturer’s booklet. If you secretly mark components you can get a good idea of which jobs have been missed. Which? investigations regularly show deficiencies in servicing.

My own investigations were not to discredit garages but because my safety and the reliability/durability of my car depend on servicing being done correctly.

David,
I keep reading the term “well meaning amateurs” which having spent 30 years in automotive manufacture I find somewhat irritating, as you might imagine.

The vast majority of classic care owner I know of would be equally irritated by the reference “well meaning amateurs”. Many have restored these vehicle to pristine condition starting from a point that would see less interesting modern cars ripe for the crusher.

But my argument comes back to personal responsibility and anyone not capabile of identifying potential safety issues should not drive a classic, or any other car for that matter. The MOT is as I said a snapshot once a year. What about the other 364 days? If we drive we are responsible not only for how we drive but also the roadworthiness of what we drive no good hiding behind a current MOT ticket or pleading technical ignorance in the event of an obvious safety fault. And if that means that many people currently driving shouldn’t be then yes so be it.

Wavechanger,
Perhaps I should re phrase to “brakes either stop the car efficiently when applied or they don’t”.
If a driver cannot detect that from the driving seat on one of the 364 days a year of the car is not being tested whether that driver should be sat there or not must be questionable.
As regards “judgement” regarding the condition of any given system or component who might be best positioned the person that restored or built it or a mechanic, capable no doubt, but just following a generic set of MOT test guidelines?
But as I’ve said it’s down to personal responsibility and I feel safer deciding whats safe and what isn’t with my classic car condition on a regular ongoing basis than any reliance or reassurance (or lack of) that might come from a once a year snapshot MOT.

Chris

I am not questioning your personal abilities but we need to have a system that can be applied across the board, and not just to you and your vehicles.

I have spent many years in university teaching and know that an individual’s view of their own abilities is of limited use. Independent assessment is essential, and ensuring that the assessors are up to standard is also vital.

I found it a bit irritating having colleagues checking on my abilities to do my job, but I realise why this was necessary.

Peter,
You are quite correct. The more complex electronic safety features become the more potential there is for failure of these systems. Perhaps warning lights should be taken as saying “there might be a problem”? But in the event a system, like seat belt fastening, is proven through obvious physical evidence to be working ok how can a vehicle be classed as a safety hazard and therefore an MOT failure?
I like I suspect you are concerned about our reliance on these modern safety features. Although I’m sure when working correctly they can be beneficial there is an element of giving people a false sense of security about them I cannot seem to shake.
Having said that this conversation is about classic car MOT’s. Classics don’t have many of these features so at least there will be no false sense of security so we classic car drivers tend to careful and focused in our driving (hence the lower insurance premiums). Something modern car drivers might also benefit from practicing more.

Why blame the EU? The fault lies with the company that made your car or those that failed to identify and repair the faults.

If you were permitted to drive around with warning lights on, how would you know if a real fault developed? That would be crazy.

I think long warranties for all cars is the way forward. If manufacturers have to pay for repairs it is likely that the electronics they fit will suddenly become much more reliable.