bikes excempt from mot a good idea?

[ken-drink]

read this, it makes intresting reading and food for thought
https://www.classicbikeguide.com/mot-ex ... -or-is-it/

Ken

[torbjorn.vik]

Just for info; in Norway all vehicles (cars and motorcycles) older than 30 years are exempt from inspection. This rule has been in place since tri-annual inspections were introduced years and years ago. Research confirms that such vehicles only very rarely are involved in accidents, and when accidents do happen they are not caused by the condition of the vehicle as such. In the few instances where the rider/driver of the old vehicle is to blame, the cause of the accident is mostly that the vehicle is driven recklessly in relation to its abilities (brakes, cornering, speed etc), or that the general traffic rules and regulations have been breached. One may perhaps assume that the same will be true in other reasonably civilised countries?

[TonyBaxter]

the same will be true in other reasonably civilised countries?

Yes, quite, but what about here in the UK.............

[ken-drink]

if not having an MOT when the bike does not need one , then that fact seems to reduce the compensation in the event of a claim which make me wonder about it, i will probably get an mot just to be on the safe side, it is not a big expense.
Ken

[iansoady]

I've checked with my insurers (PJ) and they confirm that exempt bikes do not need a "voluntary" one (which in any case has no legal standing as I understand it).

[ken-drink]

reading the article seems to imply that this was a decision made by a magistrate settling a claim and the compensation was reduced because it could not be proved that the bike was roadworthy, in the unlikely event of a claim going to court it seems being able to prove that the bike is road worthy is important and the only way to do that is to have an MOT or get an engineers report to prove it which would be more expensive.
so just to be on the safe side i will get one.
Ken

[johnwalsh]

I should have thought the onus was on those to prove the machine was in an un-roadworthy condition. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt or wrong not on a defence to prove innocence. And, is it not wriiten that an MOT does not prove roadworthiness of a machine, especially some time following the test.

[iansoady]

All very true. And the case "quoted" in the article was probably in someone's imagination.

We hear endless tales about how insurance companies won't pay out because we have the wrong grease in our head bearings, have added an AOMCC sticker etc etc. But I have yet to see an authenticated case where a claim has been refused or reduced other than where there was an identifiable fault in the vehicle which actually contributed to the collision.

If someone can quote chapter and verse I would be very interested.

[grahamhibbs]

An Mot proves nothing apart from the vehicle was roadworthy on the day of the test, nothing more, the article is a headline graber to sell the magazine.

[iansoady]

Agreed.