John Simister: Should pre‑1978 classics still get their MOTs?

We are all human, and often the time spent on our old-car hobby is hard-won. We might have the best of intentions as far as maintaining our cars in a good and roadworthy state is concerned, but without that annual stick that used to lightly beat us we may put things off a bit. Can we honestly say, hand on heart, that once a year we will inspect our cars thoroughly ourselves, or pay someone to do it, when we no longer need to?

We do 'need' to, of course, because it will still remain an offence to use a road vehicle in an unroadworthy condition, but who now decides what that is? And what if an accident is caused by a component failure whose deterioration could have been spotted during an MOT before it became terminal? Nor is it any good thinking that, just because a car has covered hardly any miles in the last year or so, nothing has changed. Inactivity encourages brakes to seize or leak, seals to drip, hoses to perish, while condensation encourages corrosion. 

Voluntary MOTs will still be possible, of course, as they have been since pre-1960 cars were exempted from the test a few years ago, but the Government's response to the exemption consultation reveals that just 6 per cent of such cars are now tested annually. When my 1959 Mini became MOT-exempt I pledged that I would still have it tested, but I didn't. It seems I am not alone, and the same will surely apply to pre-1978 cars that are about to be exempted.

So why has the Government done this, given that there seems to be no upside other than saving us time and money, and given that of the 2029 responses received from the public to the consultation's proposals, a majority (1130, so not huge) was against the idea?

On an administrative level it was an interpretation and enactment of an EU vehicle-testing directive, and Brexit doesn't change that. On a real-world level, the Government's view is that cars over 40 years old are usually kept in good condition, and that because they are used fairly infrequently and on short trips it was unreasonable to require an MOT. (Not that anyone really objected to the requirement.)

The Government also thinks that the modern MOT is no longer relevant to cars over 40 years old and that garages could not test them adequately, although my local garage's MOT test of my old cars seems pretty thorough and the tester has never had any trouble doing the testing. In fact, there's rather less to check when testing a pre-1978 car than a recent one: no ABS, no airbag light, no catalytic converter and no standard rear seatbelts, for example.

All told, it's very hard to see the reasoning behind the new MOT exemption, be it in the UK or Europe-wide. It's bound to lead to some more accidents; the Government view is that the accident rate for pre-1978 cars is already negligible and the increase in risk post-exemption is statistically minimal, but those affected by an accident might not buy that argument. Exemption could lead to a general worsening of the average classic car's condition, and it deprives garages not only of revenue but also of the pleasure and job satisfaction many of them feel on encountering an interesting old car.

When the pre-1960 exemption was enacted, there was talk of insurance companies insisting on some other independent evidence of a car's roadworthiness. This hasn't happened, but there could well be a stronger call for it now given the greater numbers of exempt cars. Those newer cars tend to be faster and be used more, too, so the risk per car is greater.

The Government consultation did consider a simpler test for what it calls VHIs (Vehicles of Historic Interest), involving a check of identity, brakes, steering, lights and tyres – exactly, tyres excepted, what the original MOT test entailed when introduced in the 1950s. However, many consultation respondents suggested that other items should be included, such as – crucially – the vehicle's structure. This, the Government says, 'would alter the proposed basic test to something very close to the MOT, so there seems to be little benefit from requiring such a test instead of an MOT. We have decided not to proceed with this proposal.' There's a shifting tectonic plate of logic in there somewhere. 

I do all the maintenance on my old cars, and nearly all the repairs and restoration apart from bodywork. So I am probably more able than some to recognise developing faults, and none of my classics has failed an MOT since I learnt the skills during holiday jobs as a mechanic (at the local Rootes/Chrysler main dealer; it could never happen now). But a lot of classic-car owners haven't picked up these skills. Some might already have their cars maintained by a garage, but others might just rely on the MOT test to identify problems.

With that safety net gone, I foresee a lot of classic cars being driven in a state of benign ignorance as to what is festering away beneath. Many a vital maintenance job will now never be got around to. It won't take many accidents caused by a lack of inspection to give old cars a bad name, with calls for curtailment on their use.

Insurance companies, the ball now seems to be in your court.