important Proposed MOT regulations VEHICLE LIST

[antarmike]

So the original question remains - what are we Stalwart owners supposed to do??

If they can't fit it into a class - and personally I believe it should be in with the Saracens and Saladin's as it is the same base platform to use the reasoning that seems to be behind this document - do we wind up with a whole lot of vehicles with a unique place in the history of Army transportation that can no longer legally turn a wheel?? After all - show rules say the Road act applies so no MOT cert must = no movement of Stalwarts. We end up with large lumps of steel that can never turn a wheel again, not even to drive on and off a low-loader.

Having just spent the best part of £15,000 getting mine back on the road again I am rather pee'd at the thought it might be wasted due to the whim of a civil servant from VOSA - a Gov't agency who have already cost me over £11,000 due to their incompetency!!!

 

Saracen and Saladin are locomotives because they fit the description" Mechanically Propelled vehicle not itself constructed to carry a load, other than equipment, loose tools and loose equipment" Stalwart is HMLC High mobility load carrier. It has a load platform, and drop sides to carry and contain a load. It therefore is clearly not a locomotive and is not in the same Construction and Use definition as Saracen andSaladin nor for that matter Salamander.

 

Saracen/ Saladin fall within width limits for the construction and use width for "any other vehicle" of 2.55metres ( so even if these weren't considered as locomotives they could still be accomodated within C and U) , being 2.520m and 2.515 m wide respectively. Stalwart is outside Construction and Use "any other vehicle" being 2.620.

 

Stalwart may be based on and derived from Saladin/ Saracen but it has grown in the process and has fallen outside permitted width

 

PM sent.

 

PS your present problems are nothing to do with a whim of a civil sevant in VOSA, The statuary instruments that decide how a vehicle should be built and used are passed by the democratically elected goverment of the day. Please don't antagonise VOSA, this is not their fault.

Edited February 8, 2010 by antarmike

[Adrian Barrell]

Incorrect, only certain parts of the RTA apply as show grounds are private property. No MOT or Road tax needed, vehicle has to have third party off road liability as a minimum & the driver must hold the appropriate licence for the class of vehicle driven... Vehicle must be in good mechanical order, so up to MOT standard where applicable...

 

QUOTE]

 

That's what I understood so I was a little surprised to read some of the interpretations on here!

[antarmike]

Incorrect, only certain parts of the RTA apply as show grounds are private property. No MOT or Road tax needed, vehicle has to have third party off road liability as a minimum & the driver must hold the appropriate licence for the class of vehicle driven... Vehicle must be in good mechanical order, so up to MOT standard where applicable...

 

QUOTE]

 

That's what I understood so I was a little surprised to read some of the interpretations on here!

 

Can you point me to the source document please.

[Adrian Barrell]

 

Can you point me to the source document please.

 

No, that's why I said ''I understood''. I have never seen any document claiming Road Traffic act does or does not apply at show sites. I would be interested in seeing what you have on the subject, if it's not to much of a thread shift!

[antarmike]

 

No, that's why I said ''I understood''. I have never seen any document claiming Road Traffic act does or does not apply at show sites. I would be interested in seeing what you have on the subject, if it's not to much of a thread shift!

 

like you I only have an understanding, but most rally entry forms ask for a declaration that, if needed, you have a valid MOT.

 

When I say you need an MOT to be on a rally field, I mean, the organisers demand it, not it is required by law.

Edited February 8, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

I'm confused now -

 

• So what is to prevent a Stalwart being taxed and used on the road outside the Construction & Use Regs?
  
• Why is there a restriction on 'Special Types' - a category specifically created for vehicles such as the Stalwart?
  
• Just because that category might not have existed when the Stalwart was born, why does that stop it being placed in any current category that fits?
  

This is important, so you can establish which vehicles will be affected by the changes proposed.

 

 

 

 

The WIDTH thing is coming back to bite us again - in the interests of clarity should we be establishing exactly what the width limit is, for the following:

1. large vehicles currently able to operate as a test exempt class (e.g. locomotive)
   
2. same vehicles should they be required to have a test
   
3. a vehicle pre-1960 operating under Historic tax with no clearly defined clasification on V5
   

 

Edited February 8, 2010 by N.O.S.

[N.O.S.]

Another thing which confuses me (not difficult nowadays but bear with me) -

 

You say Stalwart has a load platform and drop sides so clearly is load carrier not locomotive - what is the difference between Stalwart's body and the big box thing on the back of many locomotives designed to carry a load (e.g. ballast weights)?

 

I would have thought it was quite reasonable to legitimately use a Stalwart as a locomotive. After all wasn't it also used for pulling a gun, with the ammo acting as ballast?

 

p.s. please don't read any antagonism or similar into my posts - we need to get this right and I do appreciate the way you are very sensibly trying to tie everyones' comments back to a piece of legislation for clarification.

Edited February 8, 2010 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

I'm confused now -

 

• So what is to prevent a Stalwart being taxed and used on the road outside the Construction & Use Regs?

• Why is there a restriction on 'Special Types' - a category specifically created for vehicles such as the Stalwart?

• Just because that category might not have existed when the Stalwart was born, why does that stop it being placed in any current category that fits?

This is important, so you can establish which vehicles will be affected by the changes proposed.

 

 

 

The WIDTH thing is coming back to bite us again - in the interests of clarity should we be establishing exactly what the width limit is, for the following:

1. large vehicles currently able to operate as a test exempt class

2. same vehicles should they be required to have a test

3. a vehicle pre-1960 operating under Historic tax with no clearly defined clasification on V5

 

Special types was created for vehicles such as Stalwart, in as much as its use was permitted under Army ownership as an "operational military vehicle"

 

Stalwart no longer fits that category, because the Army no longer use it.

 

Other categories where created for other types of vehicles that had to be outside construction and use because of operational needs.

 

There has never been a category for out of width goods vehicles apart from what is now termed AILV's. I cannot see that Stalwart is an AILV, because the load it carries, on public roads, could be carried on a vehicle that complied in all respects with Cand U.

 

There is nothing about Stalwart I can see that makes it an AILV. It does not carry a "special types" plate indicating axles weights, gross vehicle weights, Maximium rain weight, and its max load at relevant speeds. It is not designed to carry abnormal loads.

 

In the way HMVF users want to use Stalwart, the primary use cannot be shown to be Agriculture, horticulture of fisheries so it cannot be a "wide Agricultural vehicle"

 

Have you a suggestion as to what part of "special types" Stalwart fits. I have repeatedly asked if anyone thinks my interpretation is wrong, and to tell me which category within "special types" Stalwart fits. Can you?

 

As I have said, I cannot see a category that Stawart will fit into.

 

re width limits, the width limit is different for different categories within "special Types" there is no overall maximum. To determine a maximum width, you need to specify a category. I suggest you follow this up by reading the statutary instruments link http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20031998.htm

 

 

Can this go to PM to me please, we are wandering off course.

 

Special types was designed to allow vehicles that had to be outside C and U because of an operational need to be used. Once Special types was initiated, vehicles have to comply with its rules.

 

Special types was not set up so that you could build anything, of any width, then call it a special type. Special type vehicles have to be built to comply with the special types regs applicable to the particular category. I cannot see Stalwart does.

Edited February 8, 2010 by antarmike

[Marmite!!]

Another thing which confuses me (not dificuklt nowadays but bear with me) -

 

You say Stalwart has a load platform and drop sides so clearly is load carrier not locomotive - what is the difference between Stalwart's body and the big box thing on the back of many locomotives designed to carry a load (e.g. ballast weights)?

 

I would have thought it was quite reasonable to legitimnately use a Stalwart as a locomotive.

 

Think there's a clue in the name "Stalwart HMLC" as to it's purpose.

[Marmite!!]

 

like you I only have an understanding, but most rally entry forms ask for a declaration that, if needed, you have a valid MOT.

 

When I say you need an MOT to be on a rally field, I mean, the organisers demand it, not it is required by law.

As a show organiser the info was from a meeting with police when we were discussing setting up the show, you are correct in that show organisers can demand whatever they want on the entry forms.

[Dave]

VOSA test stations have a load simulator which presses down on the bed above the axle being tested. This can be set to give the required load. If you present a vehicle that this cannot be used on, you have to load the vehicle to a prescribed weight.

It` s a mad world out there!

When my low-loader was up for test the trailer wasn`t required to be laden for the brake test

but the tractor unit was as the load simulator couldn`t press down hard enough on the back of the solo unit.

other questions i have wondered about are

Will a saracen have to comply with seat belt regulations for all seats as a mini-bus?

Will my Diamond T 981 have to have rear mud flaps fitted?

The standard mirors on our vehicles are bound to raise questions (size/field of view)

How long before they are on about tachograph law? licensng groups etc?

I once had to remove a dashboard mounted fan because it supposedly obscured my vision whilst driving how many ex-mil vehicles have a completely clear field of view throught their windows?

I think eventually this will fall flat on it`s butt, until then it`s going to be a stressful time for all of us.

[N.O.S.]

Are we still hung up on the idea that a vehicle can only ever be classified or described as one type?

 

You say there is no category for 'out of width goods vehicles' other than AILV. But why does Stalwart have to be regarded as a goods vehicle?

 

Is the solution for such vehicles to look at how that vehicle type might legitimately be considered as something other than just one type of vehicle? I have suggested the Stalwart could be used as a Locomotive, in which case (if I really wanted to use it as such) couldn't I register it as a Locomotive, so long as it complied with all the regulations which apply to Locomotives?

 

Here's an example -

in exactly the same way that a heavy haulage company uses a specialist tractor (Locomotive) to haul trailers, they could also legitimately use a bog standard HVG 6 x 4 26 tonne tipper as a Locomotive - ballast in back and a good drawbar, and tax / test / operate it as a Locomotive.

 

They would not be able to use that vehicle for locomotive work one day and bulk gravel deliveries the next unless of course the vehicle complied in all respects to the taxation / testing / C&U requirements of each specific use, in which case they could.

Given the restrictive definition of Locomotive I don't think this example is valid

 

Am I talking complete scribble here? It's just that I see it as a wholly legitimate solution to the problem you've raised.

 

I very much hope that this shake-up will not result in overwidth vehicles like Stalwart having to come off the roads - but if my reasoning above is flawed then 'continued use of existing overwidth vehicles' should form a major discussion point in any respresentations.

Edited February 10, 2010 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

Another thing which confuses me (not difficult nowadays but bear with me) -

 

You say Stalwart has a load platform and drop sides so clearly is load carrier not locomotive - what is the difference between Stalwart's body and the big box thing on the back of many locomotives designed to carry a load (e.g. ballast weights)?

 

I would have thought it was quite reasonable to legitimately use a Stalwart as a locomotive. After all wasn't it also used for pulling a gun, with the ammo acting as ballast?

 

p.s. please don't read any antagonism or similar into my posts - we need to get this right and I do appreciate the way you are very sensibly trying to tie everyones' comments back to a piece of legislation for clarification.

 

Stalwart may pull gun or a trailer, but Motor tractors and Locomotives have to be " not itself constructed to carry a load"

 

There is nothing else I can think to say as to why I don't think Stalwart is a locomotive.

[antarmike]

... but if my reasoning above is flawed then 'continued use of existing overwidth vehicles' should form a major discussion point in any respresentations.

 

Continued use assumes present use is lawful. If (and that is a big if, because this is afterall my opinion) present use is illegal, and people have been running Stalwarts, unknowingly, illegally, and VOSA/ DVLA/ Police have not twigged, then there is no "continued use".

 

The relevant questions are;_

a) is the present use of Stalwart on the road legal?

b) what is the justification for this arguement, Ie what category of vehicle , under C and U or "special types" does it comply with

c) will the proposed changes alter the situation, therefore can a representation be made.

 

My understanding is

a) no, present use is not lawful

b) there is no category to fit into, it neither complies with C and U nor "special types"

c) No, these proposals do not alter the present or future position of Stalwart. The aim of the proposal is to limit or reduce the number of vehicles not requiring MOT, not to increase the number.

 

PLEASE CAN THIS GO TO PRIVATE MESSAGE.

 

There is nothing else I can say on this Forum.

Edited February 8, 2010 by antarmike

[Marmite!!]

Can we stick to what this thread was intended for (I'm as guilty as others).. a list of vehicles that may be affected by the proposals, just keep to specifics, if you want to chat then use the other thread please or take it to PM with Mike, please remember that Mike is doing his best to sort out this minefield & is quoting the regulations as he sees them, if you need further clarifications maybe contact the relevant department & get an answer in writing from them.

 

There seems to be a lot of members that are sitting on the fence here & not coming forward with their vehicle details, if you don't let Mike know that you may be affected the he may not be able to include your type of vehicle in any representation.

 

Cheers Lee

Edited February 8, 2010 by Marmite!!

[Tony B]

I wish Mike the best of luck! Even the VOSA website has a disclaimer saying 'Nothing here can be treated as Gospel'. So if the licenceing authority don't have a clue' what chance have the rest of us?

[antarmike]

I am back working on things this week end, are there anymore difficult vehicles out there? Problems we see with testing, whatever.

 

Anyone run any American trucks, M35 or the like as Locomotives. What height are the headlamps, do these meet C and U regs or have you already done a mod?, Any other ideas, or I will have to go with what I have got?

[Adrian]

It` s a mad world out there!

When my low-loader was up for test the trailer wasn`t required to be laden for the brake test

but the tractor unit was as the load simulator couldn`t press down hard enough on the back of the solo unit.

other questions i have wondered about are

Will a saracen have to comply with seat belt regulations for all seats as a mini-bus?

Will my Diamond T 981 have to have rear mud flaps fitted?

The standard mirors on our vehicles are bound to raise questions (size/field of view)

How long before they are on about tachograph law? licensng groups etc?

I once had to remove a dashboard mounted fan because it supposedly obscured my vision whilst driving how many ex-mil vehicles have a completely clear field of view throught their windows?

I think eventually this will fall flat on it`s butt, until then it`s going to be a stressful time for all of us.

 

I have already opted for mud flaps (pearsonal choice) on the T but would be interested on any brake test regulartions as for the moment I have no intention of towing a loaded trailer(lack of HGV1 but penned in for the future) and would obviously prefer to go without the hassle.

[Adrian]

I am back working on things this week end, are there anymore difficult vehicles out there? Problems we see with testing, whatever.

 

Anyone run any American trucks, M35 or the like as Locomotives. What height are the headlamps, do these meet C and U regs or have you already done a mod?, Any other ideas, or I will have to go with what I have got?

 

Headlamps will be modded as part of the resto. A clarification on indicator requirements and mirrors for historics would be good though. My lighting should be pretty much up to modern standards but was going to retain standard door mirror config. with a small mirror on the o/s to act as a marker.

 

Thanks for your work on this Mike.

 

A

[julezee001]

I think Ferret is Motor tractor and is MOT exempt at present.

 

Class iv vehicles are:-

Cars (up to 8 passenger seats)

Motor caravans

3 wheeled vehicles (over 450 kg unladen weight)

Quads (max unladen weight 400 kg - for goods vehicles 550 Kg and max net power of 15 kw)

Dual purpose vehicles

Private hire and public service vehicles (up to 8 seats)

Ambulances and taxis

Private passenger vehicles and ambulances (9-12 passenger seats)

 

I cannot see a class iv category that suits a Ferret.

Not quad power of a Ferret =92 Kw but quad max power is 15 Kw plus max weight exceeded by by a factor of five

 

not Dual Purpose vehicle DPV max vehicle weight is 2,040 kg, Ferret = 3660 Kgs

 

The weight of ferret excludes it being a motor car whose max is 3050Kgs

 

Likewise Saracen / Saladin cannot be tested as a class iv since it exceeds weight limits for class iv vehicles. being heavier than ferret it is a light locomotive.

 

Both Ferret and Saracen / Saladin family are currently MOT exempt but will require testing.

 

If this anecdote is true it shows the problems, We appear to have MOT testers who are so ingorant of the regulations that they are testing vehicles that are out of scope for the test they are doing and issuing MOT's for a vehicle they may not have the correect facilities to test, nor have they the authority to test the correct class the vehicle should be in. Both of these vehicles, if put through voluntary testing, should be tested at an HGV testing station, under the HGV test regime.

 

I have previously had my Mk1 AEC Militant tested as a motor caravan (i.e. bed, sink, cooker screwed down), which was very handy as the brake efficiency I believe is lower than for an HGV test. Unfortunately my local test centre no longer has a tester qualified to test class 4 vehicles, so it has had to have an HGV test, which has been fine apart from hassles with brake performance.

 

I think the max weight for duel purpose vehicle was 3500kg, but VOSA was supposed to have done away with the class towards the end of last year, meaning any such vehicle with a GVW of over 3000kg but under 3500kg would have to have a class7 test. I haven't had to try it out yet, but it means a Landrover 110 CSW that has a GVW of 2950kg would stay class 4, yet my van bodied 110 is 3050kg and would be class 7. Great!!

 

Jules

[barrynevuk]

I have a Fv432 Mk1. If I was to cut off the air filtration box on the off side, and plate it over I belive this would then fall within the 2.55m witdth. Does this then include my 432 within the changes? Or are tracked vehicles to stay exempt? The later Mk2 has the extra width with the exhaust down the side so this mod would make no difference without further modifications.

Barry

[barrynevuk]

Just something else, are the sherman tanks etc. road registered owned by forum members? I belive these will be over the 2.55m width so are these also outside the laws at present?

Barry

[antarmike]

I have a Fv432 Mk1. If I was to cut off the air filtration box on the off side, and plate it over I belive this would then fall within the 2.55m witdth. Does this then include my 432 within the changes? Or are tracked vehicles to stay exempt? The later Mk2 has the extra width with the exhaust down the side so this mod would make no difference without further modifications.

Barry

 

I believe that for tracked vehicles they can be no wider than 2.55 m unless they can be viewed as Locomotives then they can be 2.75m.

 

A sherman may be a loco because it is "not itself designed to carry a load". but it could be argued that it was intended to carry a load in the form of its ammunition., so it may not be a locomotive. An FV432 is designed to carry a load.

 

I cannot see if the filters can be removed, not only for testing, but also at anytime the vehicle is running on the road, then it should be accepted for use under C and U regs, and would remain MOT exempt as a "Tracked vehicle"

 

Just something else, are the sherman tanks etc. road registered owned by forum members? I belive these will be over the 2.55m width so are these also outside the laws at present?

Barry

If Sheramn is within 2.75 and IF can be classed as Loco then road use should be okay, and exemption should be reatined under proposals.

Edited February 13, 2010 by antarmike

[ArtistsRifles]

<Snipped for brevity>

 

A sherman may be a loco because it is "not itself designed to carry a load". An FV432 is designed to carry a load.

 

 

 

What then is a "load"?

 

Looking at the Oxford English dictionary it say a "load" is:

• noun

1 a heavy or bulky thing being or about to be carried.

2 a weight or source of pressure.

3 the total number or amount carried in a vehicle or container. (items or articles - my interpretation)

4 (a load/loads of) informal a lot of.

5 the amount of work to be done by a person or machine.

6 the amount of power supplied by a source.

7 a burden of responsibility, worry, or grief.

 

• verb

1 put a load on or in.

2 place (a load or large quantity) on or in a vehicle, container, etc.

3 insert (something) into a device so that it will operate.

4 charge (a firearm) with ammunition.

5 bias towards a particular outcome.

 

— PHRASES

get a load of informal take a look at (used to draw attention to someone or something).

load the dice against (or in favour of) put at a disadvantage (or advantage).

 

As a 432 is designed to carry primarily people and not specifically objects - do these really count as a load as opposed to it being effectively a minibus (according to DVLA a minibus has less than 17 seats inc. the drivers if not used for hire or reward or not more than 9 seats inc drivers if it is used for hire and reward). After all - a bus of any sort is usually specified by the number of people it carries or "seats" - not the weight of the combined bodies. Like-wise a 432 is generally referred to an a 10 seat APC and not a xx ton load carrier.

 

Just curious.

[antarmike]

What then is a "load"?

 

Looking at the Oxford English dictionary it say a "load" is:

 

 

As a 432 is designed to carry primarily people and not specifically objects - do these really count as a load as opposed to it being effectively a minibus (according to DVLA a minibus has less than 17 seats inc. the drivers if not used for hire or reward or not more than 9 seats inc drivers if it is used for hire and reward). After all - a bus of any sort is usually specified by the number of people it carries or "seats" - not the weight of the combined bodies. Like-wise a 432 is generally referred to an a 10 seat APC and not a xx ton load carrier.

 

Just curious.

 

For definitions you need to refer to the acts, not a dictionary. I cannot get into discussion with you for reasons I have already outlined in various PM's. If you seek clarification, follow my advice and contact VOSA, DVLA/DfT.

 

Laden weight of Fv432 is quoted as typically 16.4 tons, or 15,28 tonnes depending on role, its unladen weight is 13.74 Tonnes. Difference between laden/ unladen = 1.54 tons

 

I am not sure that people alone weigh that much. In Carl Gustav role, Mortar role, Wombat role and FV433 Abbot it clearly carries ammunition/ missiles, which are indiputedly a load.

 

In the FV434 role itis "designed to carry Major assemblies or power packs....Stowed on the vehicle are special tools and equipment to facilitate the replacement of these assemblies."

 

Whether or not it carries a load is however immaterial since it cannot be viewed as a motor tractor or a locomotive because at 2.819 it exceeds the maximum permitted width for these categories of vehicle, namely 2.75 m.

 

I do not know what point you are trying to make but my position has already been clearly stated, and I am not revisiting it. Seek clarification either by reading the acts themselves, seking an answer from VOSA/DVLA/DfT or look at case history.

Mike

Edited February 13, 2010 by antarmike