MOT after May 20th?.

[Moorey]

The insurance companies could specify that you have to have one if you want cover from them. Just like some specify you must have locks or alarms fitted.

[kevski]

Well you have to be a special kind of stupid not to cover your own arse, because rest assured your own insurance companies already have, my bikes will be tested no matter what the costs.

[thegreatpan]

Could one of you who understands the DVLA  nuances please clarify, my bike was first registered in Feb '77, do I have to wait till May 20th to register it as Historic, or can I do it now? Quite pertinent as I am about to tax the machine. Thanks

[matthewmosse]

Nearest mot station is 20 miles each way and employs several fairly awful testers, not that they are all bad but last mot' s I had from them they failed a set of shockers on my kh125, ( none serviceable type ) I felt those along with a few other fail items that essentially put the bike past being worth saving. 6 months down the line I fitted the same rear shocks to a gs125, without even cleaning them, that bike passed with no advisories with the same tester. After a lecture when it failed that they were way too soft to be safe and a tour of a new bike in their workshop that pointed out a few things where basically a cheap 125cc commuter that was 1/4 of a centuary old was never built to that standard so testing it to his standard was silly and some test procedures like lifting both wheels off the floor so all weight went though the side stand of the bike to test headset bearings - it had a center stand so why do that? And the mot tester checking for corrosion on the swing arm by battering it with a stick welders slag hammer  - well not using that tester again, next garage doing bike mots is 35 miles each way. No, I will not be bothering with an mot if I can do without. Too many cowboys in the garage industry. Only reason I learnt to do my own mechanical work is it's too easy to get charged the earth for bad workmanship. Some of the worst mechanical faults I have seen on my  vehicles have come from mot testers who were given jobs because they were supposedly competent - I changed garages for the car last year after one place I though was good managed on a £700 Bill to leave me with a loose gearbox filler bolt that lost the gearbox oil, a new wiper blade that flew off as soon as we used the wipers - I was damn lucky to spot the oil on my drive when the wife took the car out and investigate as it had next to no oil and a drive shaft seal ruined was only damage. Potential for massive expense. After that I would prefer to go around my bike before every ride, get to know it really well and just be in the habit of doing those checks regularly. Give me an mot certificate it's easier to just jump on and go, content with having that bit of paper. The bit of paper proves very little, I have had bikes where the rear wheel has locked 20 yards from the mot place thanks to cheap brake shoes, and even had a frame snap from internal corrosion. That day it takes to get mot man to run the test and me to ride there is better spent doing a really good service, I have on 3 occasions now found brake linings that passed an mot but where the linings are comming unstuck and these were spotted during routine strip down and greasing of brake pivots.

[Seabeowner]

Could one of you who understands the DVLA  nuances please clarify, my bike was first registered in Feb '77, do I have to wait till May 20th to register it as Historic, or can I do it now? Quite pertinent as I am about to tax the machine. Thanks

Thought the historic tax rollover will apply from April, so I presume you can do it from then. But you will need an MOT as the MOT change will not occur until May20th.

[Tomb]

I have top agree with Matthew, the standard of workmanship is a joke, it irks me to pay the £29 for the work they do.
I'm chief mechanic/engineer for a drag bike race team, we have to go through scrutineering every meeting besides theres no way I would send the rider out on something unsafe so I'm happy to check my own work. I won't be MOTing my exempt bikes.

However I do worry that there will be lots of unsafe stuff out there once this starts. I worked in MOTing and have seen some of the bikes ridden in, one particularly nice CB750 had an astonishing amount of swing arm play that we failed, the owner was most upset arguing there was nothing wrong with it.
I have XS1100's as well as Hondas, they are a big heavy 135mph motorcycle, the first ones built will be eligible for MOT exemption. Some of the questions we get asked on the owners forum makes me think there will be a lot ridden in seriously unsafe condition.

[royhall]

Well you have to be a special kind of stupid not to cover your own arse, because rest assured your own insurance companies already have, my bikes will be tested no matter what the costs.

You could always try asking them instead of assuming incoming doom. They may just have it in the paperwork that they comply with the 40 year rule. I would like to see them get out of a payment in court when a rider has complied with the law. Choose your insurance carefully.

[Moorey]

Its not a matter of them complying with the 40 year rule. A insurance company can stipulate whatever it wants in the terms and conditions for them to insure you. The choice is yours whether you agree to terms and conditions or seek another insurance company. If terms and conditions stipulate a mot and you do not have one then you have broken the contract and they will not have to pay out.

[Tomb]

As far as insurance companies not paying out, remember an MOT means the vehicle is safe at that time on that day, tomorrow it could break catastrophically. Insurance companies will choose to not pay out if mechanical failure can be proved the blame for an accident if the owner knew - MOT or not.

Ok some mechanical failure may cause the accident as they fail, but examples like bald tyres, ineffective brakes that clearly were ineffective for some time will be taken into account by insurers.

Having an MOT cert is no guarantee of pay out.

[royhall]

Its not a matter of them complying with the 40 year rule. A insurance company can stipulate whatever it wants in the terms and conditions for them to insure you. The choice is yours whether you agree to terms and conditions or seek another insurance company. If terms and conditions stipulate a mot and you do not have one then you have broken the contract and they will not have to pay out.

That's why I say ask the insurance company. If they say they want an MOT then that is what you will have to do. How many people take out insurance and have no idea what they are buying. It's not just MOT issues there are many other things that will cause a No Payout ie. Bike stored away from the address listed without prior consent. All my garages addresses are listed on the insurance, just one example. Just a phone call.

[Moorey]

No it is no guarantee of payout it would depend on what else comes into play, in the event of a claim. But if they stipulate you MUST have a MOT it is just the same as if they stipulate you MUST have a alarm or whatever fitted, then that is the term of the contract. There is no getting around the word must. It would be what you are agreeing to do in the contract for insurance.
Just because HM Gov are allowing it does not mean insurance comps will have to allow it. That will be a matter for the individual insurance companies. I would suggest people ask their insurance companies what their position ion this is. At this time I would think all polices would say you MUST have a Mot  to use on the road unless you are going to or from a Mot.
Does anyone know what happens already with pre 60s vehicles as far as insurance is concerned. Because the pool of vehicles that qualify is about to get much larger and will continue to do so.
In 20 years time you will be having such as Blackbirds qualifying .

[Moorey]

Its not a matter of them complying with the 40 year rule. A insurance company can stipulate whatever it wants in the terms and conditions for them to insure you. The choice is yours whether you agree to terms and conditions or seek another insurance company. If terms and conditions stipulate a mot and you do not have one then you have broken the contract and they will not have to pay out.

That's why I say ask the insurance company. If they say they want an MOT then that is what you will have to do. How many people take out insurance and have no idea what they are buying. It's not just MOT issues there are many other things that will cause a No Payout ie. Bike stored away from the address listed without prior consent. All my garages addresses are listed on the insurance, just one example. Just a phone call.

Then you are sensible and doing the right thing and covering your arse as far as i'm concerned.
Not everyone is though. I am sure we all know someone who has been conservative with the truth to get insurance.

[kevski]

Claims assessor, says the bike was not fit for the road and should not have been there, no pay out. No legs to stand on. Don't get me wrong i like the idea of not having to MOT my bikes, but insurance is just a business, so for the sake of a few quid they will be tested.

[royhall]

Claims assessor, says the bike was not fit for the road and should not have been there, no pay out. No legs to stand on. Don't get me wrong i like the idea of not having to MOT my bikes, but insurance is just a business, so for the sake of a few quid they will be tested.

Agreed. If its not fit for the road don't ride it (MOT or not). And if you want to lie to your insurer don't whine when they refuse a payout. If your in any doubt whatsoever get it MOTed. Simple really.

[Arch stanton]

 But an MOT is pretty pointless really. As it only certifies that the vehicle was roadworthy at the time of the test.
Sean.