No MOT needed for cars before 1960

Saw this today, thought it was interesting - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326

Basically stating that cars before 1960 needn't be MOT tested any more, something to do with saving money for people with classic cars.

The struggling for money side of me disagrees that this is a good idea, but the petrol head side of me thinks its great.

So generally, people with classic cars, are more likely to be people with more money than the rest of us right? People who have them as second cars that they only bring out once in a blue moon... instead of saving them money - why not reduce the price of MOTs or something. I'm assuming the reason they've done it is because there are new MOT rules and its probably getting harder and harder to keep old cars up to date with them.

But then... if I can get a car from 1960 or earlier - I can be exempt from tax, MOT and get classic insurance. So if I didn't have those costs that'd be a saving of £250 a year, which would basically half the costs of legally having a car on the road.

What if you could fit a modern diesel engine? I don't know the ins and outs of how you would do that, but you could make a stupidly cheap car to run if you do 60mpg and pay no tax or MOT

iv heard similar for bikes. And the way it read to me was not many classic/bikes actually fail mots due the fact they are owned by enthusiasts etc. There was also talk of getting rid of having to renew a sorn annualy to a system where once a vehicle is sorned it stays sorned untill furthur notice and a lot of it was to do with cutting down on paper work and stuff.

forgive me for stating the obvious, but isnt the purpose of an MOT to ensure that a vehicle is fit for the road, and safe to be driven!?

the scrappage of MOT's for any vehicle in my mind is just absurd. Components will always wear out, steering joints, bushes, leaks will occur etc.

Granted what has been said, most are owned by enthusiasts, but can everyone REALLY be trusted to ensure vehicles are 'right'??????

There will inevitably be a few bad apples in the barrel which will spoil it for everyone, cut corners and potentially end up killing someone.

Too much of a risk imo

With regards to the SORn being permanent until further notice, not a bad idea, i can see the reasons behind it.
especially for those who have vehicles in dry storage for umpteen years at a time

The question is.. what pre-1960 car to stick a tdi lump in to create the best mega eco in both mpg and tax etc vehicle.

I agree with you completely Russ - I like the idea that there's a loophole that you can take advantage of to get out of some of the less important parts of the MOT (not that emissions, correct logos on number plates or air bag lights would be issues on a pre-1960 car).

But I disagree with the assumption that anyone owning a car like that will already be looking after it properly.

Its the same as the assumption that if you're under 30 you're going to crash your car and do stupid things and should be pulled over by the police as often as possible, and charged more for insurance.

Strictly speaking, why should some cars be tax exempt? Considering the prices are based on emissions, they should be paying the most. If its because people with old cars are likely to only drive them once in a while, maybe there should be a system where road tax is paid by each driver for the cars they own - giving a discount if you own two cars or something.