Motoring Alan Judd

CLASSIC CAR SENSE

Enthusiasts of motorism, as driving was often referred to in Edwardian days, may have noticed that, from May 2018, cars more than forty years old will not require an MOT, bringing them into line with the existing forty-year-plus road tax exemption. Both are rolling exemptions rather than dating from a fixed year, like the current pre-1960 MOT exemption. Good or bad? I think good, though 56 per cent of respondents to the government consultation paper thought bad.

The arguments against change are, essentially, that cars are safer with an annual, independent check of safety and environmental features. You may be a responsible and capable DIY mechanic, cherishing your collectable 1977 Ford Granada, but you’re likely to deal with faults only as you become aware of them. You’ll probably check your steering joints when you notice play, not before. An MOT, however, will tell you that, although your steering is OK now, it won’t be in a few months. Ditto tyre treads, structural corrosion, brakes and much else. Such a check not only helps keep your Granada roadworthy but helps preserve it.

Another argument against is that some will be tempted to buy tax and Mot-exempt 1970s bangers and run them into the ground as a cheaper form of motoring. Although you are still legally obliged to keep your car safe and roadworthy, chances are you’ll get away with worn engine mounts, squishy brakes and whatever, so long as you don’t have an accident or attract attention by driving with faulty lights and bits hanging off.

The arguments for change revolve around relevance. The MOT has evolved since its introduction in 1960, when cars were more basic, having to cope now, not only with old cars, but with increasingly complex modern vehicles, largely controlled by electronics. The result is a catch-all test, much of which is irrelevant to cars built about half a century ago, lacking ABS, emission and stability controls, airbags and other electronic gubbins. Even when new, they didn’t have brakes and suspension joints like modern cars; so, assessments of wear and performance have to take into account the different standards of different times. Yet most testers are too young to know what was acceptable or excessive in – say – kingpin wear in a 1960s or 1970s car. Indeed, they will rarely see an example as cars affected by this change comprise only 1 per cent of those on the road. They are also driven for many fewer miles than average.

Nor is vehicle condition a major cause of accidents. In a survey of 700,000 accidents, police estimated that 2.8 per cent of fatal accidents were caused by vehicle defects; mostly faulty tyres and brakes. Most were driver error (often, not looking), with 13.9 per cent due to illegal speeding and 15.9 per cent down to going too fast (usually round corners).

There is also the argument that government should not regulate or intervene in the lives of citizens without demonstrable need. If there is no evidence that exempting older cars from the MOT increases accidents – as there was not, after the exemption of pre-1960 cars – then the justification for intervention fails.

In fact, drivers of older cars are mostly enthusiasts and their cars expensive, collectable pieces. Those seeking cheap motoring are more likely to spend £500 on a 20-year-old Mondeo with MOT than £13,995 on the restored 1977 Granada Ghia I spotted, which will soon be exempt. And you can still MOT your jalopy if you want – pre-1960 cars are often advertised with MOTS to reassure buyers. So, a good thing, I reckon.