[speedgoose]

Interesting. It seems to be possible to skip the check for vehicles worthy of preservation. It requires the vehicle to not be modified (original design), which seems to be the case there, but also the safety equipment must function satisfactorily, which may be up for debate there.

> are in virtually original design

> Devices/equipment that are important for safety must function satisfactorily

> Must only be used - on special occasions such as motor history gatherings and races - otherwise occasionally when the use does not cause undue danger or inconvenience to other traffic.

So I would fix the brakes.

https://lovdata.no/forskrift/1994-10-04-918/§1-9 (translated with DeepL)

[anjc]

> You would be forced to fix the car, or sell it to someone who will fix it, or remove the plates and deregister it, or scrap it. If you don’t do anything the police will remove the plates.

> I would advice fixing the car or selling it to someone who will fix it because it has some value.

Your comments were quite confident when you weren't actually familiar with the basics of the topic. Most countries have relaxed road worthiness tests or complete exemptions for classic cars, and I think this stands to reason.

[dboreham]

> Most countries have relaxed road worthiness tests or complete exemptions for classic cars

I doubt the exception extends to having non-functional brakes. The exception is from things like inspections and compliance with modern standards, but you still have a duty to maintain your vehicle to its original level of safety.

[speedgoose]

Indeed I as wrong as I wasn’t aware about the exception for old worth preserving vehicles. If I was the king I wouldn’t allow old death traps to drive on open roads but I guess it makes sense to some.

[jacquesm]

As opposed to new death traps?

Plenty of new vehicles are a danger to others, and quite possibly far more so than an old 914. The driver of a 914 is probably going to be pretty careful about damaging it and will drive it prudently as a result, it also weighs (much) less than a modern vehicle and as a consequence will do less damage. Lack of built in safety and mid engine (so no engine between you and your partner in a collision, coupled with a nice hammer behind you that will use the other car in that accident you're in as the anvil and you as the workpiece) will be yet another reason why an owner will be careful about the situations they put themselves in. They'll likely do fewer km per year in than they would in a modern car.

As a cyclist I'd rather encounter someone in their classic 914 than the local lawn service jockey in his Dodge RAM flooring it at every corner.

[oceanplexian]

Especially new “Eco Friendly” cars like the 7,000lb Rivian which, if it hits another car, is going to completely obliterate it and kill any occupants inside.

[sgt]

People with vintage cars like that generally take care of them, so it's a very low risk.

Same with motorcycles (also doesn't need regular inspections in Norway) - the riders generally have a very good reason to keep them safe for their own wellbeing.

[dwater]

As someone who owns a 1970 car and several motorcycles from the 70's, I would say that this is not true in the US. If you're imagining a wealthy guy with a spotless garage that pays top dollar to keep his antiques maintained in excellent condition, then you're thinking of the minority of antique vehicle owners. I bought my car for $14k and it would cost more than that to restore it (which I don't have). I do my best to keep it in acceptable roadworthy condition, but I also frequently test drive it around the neighborhood knowing full well something isn't working properly.

In my state, vehicles registered as antiques are not required to have the annual safety inspection performed, and it is the owner's responsibility to keep the vehicle in safe operating condition, which is never checked by anyone.

[more_corn]

In California there are about five different classic car rallies. Fifty to a hundred people in pre 1975 cars get out on curvy roads and drive around for a few days. No inspections, no smog tests. No shiny paint. Cars are for driving so drive them. There are mechanical problems and there’s joy in that, breaking down and fixing things, stopping to help/heckle.

The cars could be more safe, but we’re all mechanics by necessity. Failure also reminds us that these are all human made systems. Each can fail. Each can be fixed. In some ways being aware of the systems that make a car go (and stop) and being aware of the failure modes makes the classic car drivers more safe than their counterparts in driving appliances.

[jacquesm]

> I also frequently test drive it around the neighborhood knowing full well something isn't working properly.

That's wildly irresponsible of you. How will you look yourself in the eye if you cause an accident like that? If you can't afford to keep a car maintained you can't afford it, period.

[sgt]

I think if you read it like that, sure it may sound irresponsible.

But in reality it'll look a lot more innocent than that, and I am sure that OP does it carefully enough.

You just gotta make sure the brakes work and that you don't do any silly things. Doing test rides and listening for sounds etc is key to figuring out what's wrong and what to improve next.

[dwater]

Right now the thing that isn’t working properly is the oxygen sensor, so the engine struggles to rev past 3000rpm. I don’t worry much about the potential danger that puts others in.

[alvah]

Also annual miles / kms tend to be very low, so the overall risk is usually quite contained as you say.

[ourmandave]

In the U.S. you get insurance discounts for having safety equipment (e.g. day time running lights, etc.).

I assume under the speedgoose monarchy the rates would be prohibitively expensive.