MG-Cars.net

Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGA - MOT or NOT

As in most countries also in The Netherlands cars older than 3 years have to pass a yearly test: the so called APK, an equivalent to what most of you know as 'MOT'. The APK fee is approx 25 euro, which is not a big deal.

As its general policy aims at deregulation the Dutch gouvernment has recently decided that in case a car is 30 years or older a APK is compulsary only every two years and if it is older than 40 years the APK is no longer required at all. The idea is that classic cars are very well taken care off, so they will be technically okay and meet safety regulations anyway.

So many classic car owners no longer have to be a bit nervous for passing the test. But those owners who do not pamper their car get a passport for neglecting maintenance.

What do you think of that? Is it a safe policy?


Jan Donders

Jan. An interesting question. I have relatively little experience with "Safety Inspections" as they are not required in Arizona. In the US, the requirements to license vehicles are a state matter and each state has its own requirements. When I lived in Florida and Wyoming, both states had a vehicle safety inspection program as part of their licensing requirement.

In general, a vehicle safety inspection program means that the vehicle is, after passing the inspecion, safe to drive on the public roads. Thus, if the inspection program is properly designed to adequately test the safety related parts of the car, the inspection is performed in the correct manner and the person performing the inspection is competent, you should leave the inspection station with a safe vehicle.

Florida, shortly after I went into the military, dropped their safety inspection program. Too many people were doing things like borrowing a set of tires and wheels from a friend to put on their car for the test, then replacing the borrowed tires and wheels with their old, unsafe ones. The knowledge level of the inspectors and their level of competence was very low. They were employed by the state, at low wages, to perform inspections of a wide variety of cars and trucks. They were not trained mechanics, did not have any form of extensive training program and, if they could find any better job, soon left. Thus, cars failing the program were taken to mechanics who, upon inspecting the manuals for that model, might find that a repair was necessary. But, more often, they found the inspection had not been performed properly to the required standards for that vehicle. Because of all of the problems associated with the program, it was terminated. Do not know if it was ever re-introduced.

Wyoming had filling stations, back in the days when such had mechanics working in them, car repair shops and auto dealerships perform the state required inspection. If you took your car into a dealership or a specialist familiar with your car, you could get a competent inspection most of the time. But, there was always the possiblity that they would sell you un-needed work when their mechanics were not fully booked up. Thus, a potential for the mechanics to sell un-necessary services, which might or might not be actually performed, before passing the vehicle as safe to drive.

I have had vehicles come straight out of the mechanic's shop and demonstrate safety related problems. One small thing which was not done correctly or was overlooked when re-assembling the car, or just missed when the mechanic took the car for a test drive. Sometimes this was simply because I was familiar with how the car should operate and found it to operate differently than I thought it should. The mechanic, not as familiar with how my car felt, missed what was immediately obvious to me. (I am taking my Bronco back in later today because it just had the master cylinder replaced and the brakes are not as firm as they should be. Good, but not as firm as I know they should be. It came out of the shop Friday afternoon after three days there.)

So, my experience is that you are correct in stating that the vehicle owner/operator has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the vehicle is safe to operate. And, I suspect that most owners of classic cars do their very best to keep the cars in a safe operating condition--we realize the time, effort and money we have invested in them.

Safety inspection programs are aimed at the less mechanically competent--the people who need a mechanic to perform any repair that is done on the vehicle, and at the people who do not accept any personal responsibility for ensuring their vehicle is safe to drive. Thus, I have a professional mechanic work on my American trucks. My MGs I maintain with the rare trip to a professional mechanic, when available, to do things I am not competent to do such as rebuilding the transmission. But, regardless of who maintains the vehicle, I am the one who makes the final decision as to whether it is safe to drive. Airplane pilots are reponsible for making the final decision on whether the aircraft they are to fly is safe and that is codified by regulation. The same should be true of automobiles and, in some areas, it is.

Les
Les Bengtson

Hi Jan

I am an MOT tester, I think this would be dangerous. I test quite a few classic's and vintage cars, you would be surprised what owners do to thier cars ( with good intention )and what they view as 'okay'. I can't see the authorities (VOSA) introducing this type of system in the UK

Terry
Terry Drinkwater

In Utah, vintage cars (over 40 years old) can obtain vintage license plates. This requires an initial safety inspection when you get your tags and then there are no more inspections or registrations while you own the car. There are some driving restrictions but not bad, well worth the effort. Have a good day!

John
John Progess

I appreciate the test system in the UK. After spending many hours restoring our 59 A, there were a couple of things that I had missed, or couldn't see without a pit.

I will always appreciate another set of eyes looking over the car every year. I don't consider it a pain or an inconvenience. I think that it is a very effective and cheap way of getting my car checked every year by a professional.

Garreth
Garreth

My experience with safety inspections, which Fla still does not require.. is that like anything else, it's the responsibility of the owner to ensure that the vehicle is safe to operate. I know some folks who take meticulous care of their cars--because they like to drive them and want to live to a ripe and healthy old age. Others pamper and coddle their vehicles to accumulate those precious car show trophies, and mechanically the cars are a near disaster--but they sure do look pretty. IMHO it all boils down to this--do we abrogate personal responsibilty in favor a a state operated system of mandates? When the state provides--it's usually the bare minimum--if that. I do my utmost, as a car owner, to ensure that my vehicles are roadworthy--both for myself and everyone else on the road. I do not believe that any safety type inspection is a good substitutue for following the mfgr's peiodic maintenance guidlines and following basic common sense in relationship to vehicle ownership.
R. L Carleen

I know from past topics that Terry has considerable concerns, and rightly so, about well meaning amateur mechanics fiddling with essential items such as steering and brakes. I believe that the MOT is an essential examination of the car to check that these and the many other items of the car are correctly maintained. It certainly gives me great peace of mind each year getting the tick in the box from a fully MOT-qualified mechanic.

Can I also add that, having seen pictures of the garage that Terry owns and runs, it reflects the very high standards he sets himself both professionally and also with the maintenance of his Coupe - a guy to be listened to on safety matters.

Now as for his driving skills........!


Steve
Steve Gyles

Colorado had safty inspections every 6 months when I got my first MGA in 1974, they cost $2.50 out of which the garage bought the stickers. The only way a garage made money was selling additional work. The state raised the price to $5.50 and made it good for 1 year in the mid 70's then eliminated it in favor of air tests in 1982. With the incompetency and corruption it was a waste of time. Driving an unsafe car is still a ticketable offence. The car driver is the one who is responcible we don't need another layer of government looking over our shoulders.
Now if we could just get rid of the worthless and more expensive emmision test system.
R J Brown

New York state has safety, and now, emissions inpections. As, I suspect, does California. Newer cars get both the safety and emissions inspection (one sticker) at a cost of $17. When I had the MG inspected the sticker is only for "safety" (a different sticker). When I called to make an appointment to have it inspected I explained that this was a 50 year old car just returning to the road. The fellow on the phone said "Bring it in first thing in the morning. Cars like that, we just lick 'em and stick 'em." Cost was $10
Hey, works for me. I do all my own work. No way am I'm going to drive an unsafe car.

GTF
G T Foster

Oh, I should have mentioned. This is required annually. Also, you can still be ticketed for an unsafe vehicle, even if you have a current inspection sticker, if you are stopped at a "random" inspection and found to have a problem (tires worn below limits or poor wiper blades, for example). The fine for driving with an expired sticker is getting big. The government loves to get their hand in your pocket.

GTF
G T Foster

Over 30 years ago, I was a recipient of the Great State of New York's safety inspection process. The car I bought had been salvaged (if I had only known). The car would not be given a 10 day pass. It had to be inspected first. So the car was towed to an approved safety inspection station (picture a run-down gas station). The car would not start under it's own power. It needed a jump start. The horn did not work. I can't remember all the things that did not work. I was called a day later and told it PASSED. I went to pick it up and drive it home. It wouldn't go faster than 25MPH it was so out of tune. That is my one and only experience with their safety insection.

In Illinois, years ago personal-use pickup trucks needed to be inspected. Not so any more. A friend always sent his wife with their crying baby to have the truck inspected and waited while they did it. It seems that the mechanic didn't wnat to hear the sound of the baby so he gave the truck a quick look-over, took their check and sent them on their way in spite of it's obvious flaw.

Now I don't condone having unsafe vehicles on the roadway, but I've not seen a state-run safety inspection that was used for anything more than a means to increase state revenue.

Chuck

Chuck Schaefer

GT

California has emission inspection for cars 1974 and newer. No safety inspections.

FWIW

Larry
Larry Hallanger

This thread was discussed between 14/11/2005 and 15/11/2005

MG MGA index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGA BBS is active now.