rolling mot and ved exemption

[johnr]

this is going to be interesting. as it stands, we currently have a rolling ved (tax) exemption for vehicles in the uk, at 40 yars, meaning that currently anything that was built before 1977 is exempted from ved, and it moves on every year, so next year its 1978 etc etc. and the mot test is a requirement at the moment for anything made after 1960. but this is changing next year and will be rolling at 40 years old like the ved. so, from next year, all vehicles on the road, whilst they will still need to be roadworthy will no longer need an mot or a paid for tax disk (you still need to 'tax' it like you do with a vehicle currently, you just dont need to pay for it.
considering that its getting towards 80 quid a year to tax  a big bike now, this will make late 70's and early 1980's ujm's seem very attractive in a year or two.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

[Guzziless Steve]

I am cautious about this.  Seems to make it easier for them to ban older vehicles from the road to me.  If a vehicle has no MOT or tax then easier to justify that you cannot use it as day to day transport.  Already older vehicles are being banned from cities on emission grounds and in some countries you can only use vintage vehicles on the road for very specific and limited authorised events.  However, I guess whether or not it has an MOT won't stop them banning vehicles over a certain age (i.e. not meeting current emissions legislation) from the road.

[iansoady]

I remember when the VED exemption first came in there were similar dire warnings. And it didn't happen. TBH there are so few old vehicles about it's not worth legislating them off the road.

However, by the same token it doesn't seem worth giving them special exemptions either......

[Guzziless Steve]

Hope you are right.  However, no road tax is one thing but not being road worthy (which is kind of an implication of not having an MOT) is going quite a lot further.

[themoudie]

The MoT is mearly a 'token' gesture of assurance.    I think that too many of us on this forum have either been bitten or have experience of an MoT certificate clearly not being a true representation of the roadworthiness of the vehicle. 

There are good honest testers, whom you can trust their judgement, but there are also a parcel of rogues from whom the certificate is not worthy of using as loo paper! 

As today is a glorious autumnal day and the pink feet geese flew over on Saturday, so it must be autumn, the bikes have had an oil change and we are going to enjoy the rays! 

I must concentrate on getting the Duke on the road, 1974 vintage, so should be exempt from the both VED and MoT by next year. Now where did that open megga go?     

Good health, Bill

[iansoady]

Not having an MoT and not being roadworthy are quite different offences. As suggested, you can ride out of the MoT centre and be stopped 100 yards down the road for having an unroadworthy vehicle. They're not really worth the paper they're (no longer) written on.

[Andy M]

Its a good move. The testers ars clueless. You should see that they do trying to work out if collision mitigation radar or ESC is working (using a toffee hammer and hand lamp!). Get the non-electronic vehicles out of the system and they can move to reading the faults directly from vehicles rather than trying to repeat the type approval without a track, test driver, instrumentation or enough knowledge of what it actually does. Even if a vehicle did rot like an Alfa Sud, the brake ECU would pick up the subframe moving everytime, while a once a year attack with a toffee hammer will only get a proportion.

The sewer ants are going to want their kidney, 58 pieces of silver, kilo of flesh etc. IMHO. If you sign up for 8000 miles a year including too and from work they are going to see you as a bit more of a risk than an old boy who spends more on polish than petrol.

Anyone got a '78 250 to 450 cc Honda, Suzuki or Yamaha they are thinking of selling? What year did the SR400 start?

Andy

[johnr]

well all my katanas are 81 and 82, the bsa is already mot and tax exempt, thee triumph misses the mot exemption by 3 months, so it will be exempt under the new regime.

[timbo]

Personally I'm in favour 

[Steve Lake]

personally, i'm going to get my Bantam out of it's basket, and have it on the road for next year, hardly a thumper i know but what the hell 

[iansoady]

The main benefit is that when you've rebuilt something that's been at the back of the shed for years the first trip doesn't have to be to the MoT station. Of course this allows the more irresponsible amongst us (who me?) to ride around on bikes with virtually no brakes. For example a 1931 Sunbeam.......

Oddly enough, the Arrow I've recently rebuilt has very good brakes despite the model having a very poor reputation. I blame the people who build them myself.

[BrendanO]

Re the comment about old bikes being banned from cities...we're talking about bikes we'd consider modern; like 10-15 yrs old!! Days of cheap fast commute are coming to an end. Edinburgh is becoming 20mph, other cities too, a deliberate attemp to make private motorised transport the crap option (this is admitted in writing!). Our buses are great, we are lucky, but they don't go everywhere.


Plus, bikes are always more fun, right?

[johnr]

embros public transport system does seem odd. we went there last year and stayed in a hotel opposite thee scott memorial. all day and night the busses ran, almost always empty, but frequently and inexplicable to us, on the same route as the trams, which i had assumed from th comments of my brother who lives in leith, were installed to cut traffic from the citys streets. if my town was as well served with busses as edimburgh then id give up my car too. but we a bus less than once an hour and thats on a good day. we sat one evening, aftr midnight, out on the balcony and looked over at a tram, followed by seven or eight busses, and there were probably 20 people on the entire queue combined, plus the drivers. how thee hell do theey makee money? and why would a bus company want to compete with the trams that have priority, capacity and the support of the council and govt? odd. (but fab if youre a commuter.)

[BrendanO]

Ahhh, Edinburgh's tram project. Delicate subject.

Bus AND trams both same company (well, the MAIN bus co., an award-winning publicly-owned company).
If your bro lives in Sunny Leith and has been there for 10 yrs, he can tell you many sad stories of tram development (Leith Walk dug up for tram tracks, 13 businesses went bust while no-one could park near them, then Council cancelled trams to Leith and FILLED IN THE ROAD AGAIN).

Trams are there to move pollution from Embra to somewhere eose. That's it. Officially!

They are nice, smooth, and modern. They don't go many useful places. They are now talking about digging up Leith Walk again to extend the tram route to Leith.

We are very lucky to have such great buses, 24/7 as you point out! We rarely take a car into Embra (it's hard work and £££ to park). Hopefully the trams won't suck all the money out of the buses...