latest dvla problem

[antarmike]

for my 2p worth- the MOD is in effect the previous owner -not the manufacturer -therefore they might as well say they got the opinion from "Steve down the pub"

 

That is ridiculous. The Ministry of Defence have a legal duty to comply with C and U regs or STGO rules. If a vehicle "because of operational requirements" cannot be built within those constaints, then MOD have a legal duty to apply to the Sectretary of State for a certificate for that particular vehicle to be exempted complying with C and U and STGO rules. The MOD will be perfectly aware whether the Stormer fully complies with C and U, whether it complies with STGO rules (which only they can use) or whether such a certificate of exemption (not available to civilians) was sought for this vehicle type.

 

MOD are in a very good position to offer advice to DVLA. Their advice is it neither complies with C and U or Lighting regs.

Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike

[steveo578]

andym

These vehicles are probably old enough to date back to the days when MOD was the Design Authority, methinks.

 

Yes Andy you are correct I was under the mis-impression that Stormer was an Alvis design I was unaware until I did further research that Alvis bought the original rights in 1980.:embarrassed:

 

antarmike

That is ridiculous.

 

AFAIK it is the licensed manufacturer that is the primary source for CU -for the simple reason that a design may have been modified since the selling of the licence by the original designer.

 

With regard to being "ridiculous" it is my opinion I'm entitled to it (I'm often wrong and am happy to admit it) -just as you are entitled to yours and as your bye line states you are not legally qualified -you're not a lawyer and certainly not the Commisoner therefore although your views are often very interesting it is not acceptable for you to have the attitude you have to others on the forum,-enough said:??? :argh::argh:

 

moderators informed

 

Steve

Edited October 20, 2010 by steveo578

[Marmite!!]

moderators informed

 

Steve

Mods are watching the thread.. keep it friendly guys..

[antarmike]

DVLA did not go directly to MOD for advice. The MOD's advice seems to have been sought by DfT, and then passed onto DVLA.

 

It seems that DfT are quite deeply involved in the process.

 

Who has decided the matter needs looking at in this depth is not clear. The driving force may well be DfT.

 

The MOD will undoubtedly know under what permissions and dispensations they have been operating Stormers (and all tracked armour).

 

If I say something is ridiculous, I am suggesting that MOD clearly knows what rules it has to abide by, and what permissions need seeking.

 

The suggestion that MOD do not know whether a one of their vehicles complies fully with C and U and Lighting regs, or not, is as you say "in my opinion" ridiculous.

 

I do not intend any personal insult to anyone, I am just asking them to think about what they have said, and asking them to go through the facts as to how C and U, STGO and dircretionary waiving of these rules by the Secretary of State at the request of MOD,"for operational reasons", affect what MOD must know, and what it has to do to comply.

 

I gave up trying to represent HMVF members in respect of proposed MOT exemption changes for HGV's because I felt certain posts on this forum completely undermined what I was trying to achieve.

 

There is now the suggestion that DfT has sought advice from MOD regarding particular tracked armour, but they have been fobbed off with an answer from someone in MOD who neither knew what he was talking about, nor cared enough to find out.

 

The suggestion has been made if you follow this through to a logical conclusion, that representatives in DfT accepted this information, without knowing the authority and accuracy of the source it came from, and passed it on unchecked to DVLA. Another logical conclusion is that DfT do not know how to find the right person to ask in an organisation. This is a slur on their professional competence.

 

This kind of suggestion does not help build working bridges between HMVF and DfT, and this is precisely the kind of post that, in my opinion makes HMVF less creditable in the eyes of DfT.

 

Elsewhere in this thread is a suggstion that DVLA said certain info came from MOD when it hadn't. That is surely an accusation of lying? not very helpful either!

 

C and U regs and lighting regs are readily available. Why does an owner trying to register a vehicle not go through these clause by clause, to find out for himself, whether a vehicle complies or not, before starting the process? Why has there to be so much slagging off of officialdom, who are merely trying to do their job according to the rules?

 

Surely it is unfair to start slagging of the people we are trying to work with and calling what they decide "Crap".

 

Even a rudimentary scan through lighting regs would have shown that DVLA had made the correct decision .Disregarding everthing else, On the issue of headlight position alone, DVLA are correct in not registering this vehicle at this time.

Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

Year is 1996

 

All lights, must have an approval mark ( or British Standards mark) at this age. Reflectors must also have an approval mark/ British Standards mark.

 

Do the lights and reflectors currently fitted carry the approval mark?

Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike

[Marmite!!]

If anyone believes that the MOD have been advising the DVLA/DfT on C&U issues you can make a FOI request from any of the parties involved & request what info if any has been passed on.. here's the link for the MOD FOI Request form. They are normally quite efficient and you should get a reply within a couple of weeks .http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/ContactUs/FreedomOfInformationInformationRequest.htm

 

Here's the link for FOI Request from the DVLA http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/foi/FOIApplication.aspx

Edited October 20, 2010 by Marmite!!

[steveo578]

antarmike

..........is as you say in my opinion ridiculous.

 

With respect Mike it's a matter of english, Andym corrected me succinctly without any affront, by using the word ridiculous you immediately offend, -ridiculous -def. arousing ridicule-contemptuous laughter;mockery;derision.

 

I'm sure it wasn't your intent but that is the way it came across, so I suggest we both move on and as Lee has said keep it friendly.

 

Steve

[antarmike]

Yes probably not the best choice of word, admittedly.

[timbo]

With respect Mike it's a matter of english, Andym corrected me succinctly without any affront, by using the word ridiculous you immediately offend, -ridiculous -def. arousing ridicule-contemptuous laughter;mockery;derision.

 

I'm sure it wasn't your intent but that is the way it came across, so I suggest we both move on and as Lee has said keep it friendly.

 

Steve

 

Steve

 

If it is any consolation, I would say that from what I have seen of your posts if 'Steve down the pub' were yourself then that to me would represent a very authoritative source in respect of armour/ MV issues....

 

Cheers !

[antarmike]

And if it was the coked up chap I know down the pub, anything he said should be treated as utter rubbish......or viewed as an out and out lie...

[antarmike]

With respect Mike it's a matter of english, Andym corrected me succinctly without any affront, by using the word ridiculous you immediately offend, -ridiculous -def. arousing ridicule-contemptuous laughter;mockery;derision.

 

I'm sure it wasn't your intent but that is the way it came across, so I suggest we both move on and as Lee has said keep it friendly.

 

Steve

 

according to concise English dictionary ridiculous can mean absurd.

 

And that is the sense in which I meant it.

Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike

[Marmite!!]

OK I think that's enough points scoring, back on topic please.. one post deleted

[ArtistsRifles]

With the greatest respect to all parties - I would suggest that any opinion the MoD express in technical matters isn't worth the breath used to utter it or the paper it is printed on. My dealings with the MoD in years gone by have shown them be a bunch of civil servants who's only interest is in £££'s - not technical/engineering matters.

 

Had that information come from the relevant branch of the Armed Forces then it would be worth listening to and enquiring. Any enquiries of the MoD likely will get a response "Because <insert name> thinks this is the case!"

 

At the risk of "tub thumping" - I reiterate the opinion that it is now time the relevant clubs and societies got hold of the DfT and discussed how these problems can be overcome - some form of exemption based on being ex-Military and for very limited mileage per year ought to be a fair and practicable proposition in view of what the State does not have to pay to keep history preserved. Otherwise our hobby will be legislated out of existence........

Edited October 20, 2010 by ArtistsRifles

[antarmike]

With the greatest respect to all parties - I would suggest that any opinion the MoD express in technical matters isn't worth the breath used to utter it or the paper it is printed on. My dealings with the MoD in years gone by have shown them be a bunch of civil servants who's only interest is in £££'s - not technical/engineering matters.

 

Had that information come from the relevant branch of the Armed Forces then it would be worth listening to and enquiring. Any enquiries of the MoD likely will get a response "Because <insert name> thinks this is the case!"

 

At the risk of "tub thumping" - I reiterate the opinion that it is now time the relevant clubs and societies got hold of the DfT and discussed how these problems can be overcome - some for of exemption based on being ex-Military and for very limited mileage per year out to be a fair and practicable proposition in view of what the State does not have to pay to keep history preserved. Otherwise our hobby will be legislated out of existence........

 

Would you take on this role if you had the chance?

Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike

[ArtistsRifles]

If no one better qualified was prepared to - then to preserve our hobby - yes.

The relevant ministries would not be too happy about it though!!!

[Runflat]

...now time the relevant clubs and societies got hold of the DfT and discussed how these problems can be overcome - some form of exemption based on being ex-Military and for very limited mileage per year ought to be a fair and practicable proposition in view of what the State does not have to pay to keep history preserved. Otherwise our hobby will be legislated out of existence........

 

The hobby of preserving MVs isn't being legislated out of existence. The issue is whether a private owner can drive any ex-military MV (or other motor vehicle come to that) on the road. In my view any rational person would say 'no'. There has to be limits. At the end of the day, vehicles can be very dangerous things and need to be regulated. The limits are set by the C&U Regulations. If the vehicle complies, there shouldn't be a problem. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't go on the road. End of. Most MVs will be ok. But there will be some that fall outside.

 

If there are anomolies at the edges, get them sorted. But I can't help but feel that some of the posts in this string and others start from the position of sour grapes - "I've bought this toy, so I should be allowed to play with it as I please." I don't think that washes. Sorry.

 

Moreover, if the MV clubs are aware of individuals using non-compliant vehicles on the road the best way they can demonstrate they should be taken seriously is by reporting those instances or ejecting members if they persist. Perhaps they should do more in the way of publishing guides to members as to what is covered and what isn't. It does the broader hobby no favours when people "try it on". Ignorance, or the fact that a vehicle may be registered, is no excuse either. Remember driving a non-compliant vehicle on the road probably invalidates your insurance (was the inference from earlier posts that the standard braking system on 432s make them non-compliant; and hasn't it been mentioned elsewhere that stollies are over-width?); and nobody wants to be financially liable to compensation payments after injuring someone.

[andym]

With the greatest respect to all parties - I would suggest that any opinion the MoD express in technical matters isn't worth the breath used to utter it or the paper it is printed on. My dealings with the MoD in years gone by have shown them be a bunch of civil servants who's only interest is in £££'s - not technical/engineering matters.

 

That's not entirely fair, it depends on who you talk to. If you talk to a paper-pusher you will get a paper-pusher's answer, but don't forget it was MOD civil servants who invented radar, Chobham armour and most of the other military technology we take for granted today.

 

However, I agree entirely with you on the legislation question. There needs to be an outbreak of common sense for vehicles that can't easily be modified to comply with CUR without completely altering their appearance but are run by competent enthusiasts with a very low annual mileage. Otherwise we'll forever be dodging the latest clever idea from Brussels.

 

Andy

[ArtistsRifles]

That's not entirely fair, it depends on who you talk to. If you talk to a paper-pusher you will get a paper-pusher's answer, but don't forget it was MOD civil servants who invented radar, Chobham armour and most of the other military technology we take for granted today.

 

However, I agree entirely with you on the legislation question. There needs to be an outbreak of common sense for vehicles that can't easily be modified to comply with CUR without completely altering their appearance but are run by competent enthusiasts with a very low annual mileage. Otherwise we'll forever be dodging the latest clever idea from Brussels.

 

Andy

 

This is true - sadly though inter-ministry communications tend to take place at what they like to term "executive level" - which is the realm of the paper-pushers.....

[antarmike]

Is a 14 year old stormer really Historic?

 

At what age does history begin or need preserving?

 

Does a vehicle need to be on the road to be preserved or for history to be made available to all?

 

If the Army only used tracked armour on the road for training purposes, (in preperation for a war in which they would travel on road) but when it wanted to get tracked armour from A to B it preferred low loading/ Tank Transporter ops., then is being on the road a vital part of keeping history in the public eye? If you could register a piece of wide Russian armour, which side of the road would you drive it on? Never in history has it been driven on the left hand side of a road! So what is so important, in terms of History, getting these vehicles road registered?

 

Is HMS Belfast not serving to keep Naval History alive, even though it no longer sails the seven seas? No one says it is not a valid piece of history because it is permenantly at anchor.

 

Cannot a Stormer be low loaded to shows? Does it NEED to be road registered to take part in the act of preserving History?.

 

I personally think that if a vehicle is non compliant, we should accept that fact, and use it in such a way that rules are not bent or broken. In my opinion that means these vehicles are best on loaders.

 

To take this on step further, what part of history is being re-created by road registering Russian and Eastern bloc Armour and running it around the U.K? There has never been a time during the cold War when Russian tracked Armour was ever seen on a British road, so how can anyone argue that Wide Russian armour, for example, must be allowed to run on British roads in order to preserve History?

Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike

[LoggyDriver]

Stormer has 2 braking systems same as all the cvrt's . Lights meet C&U except rear fog light which can easily be installed . Lighting regs is a very simply modification . This is just another DVLA dont want to register so wont . I have replied that this is not satisfactory and want to appeal the decision and the vehicle is available any time for dvla and vosa to complete a c&U inspection.

 

 

 

 

Can't you book the Stormer into VOSA for an ISVA. They can then confirm the vehicle has the correct brake and light systems and confirm it's adherance to CU regs. I'd do this first, before making an appeal as if you exhaust that avenue then your stuffed.

[Stormin]

I personally think that if a vehicle is non compliant, we should accept that fact, and use it in such a way that rules are not bent or broken. In my opinion that means these vehicles are best on loaders.

 

To take this on step further, what part of history is being re-created by road registering Russian and Eastern bloc Armour and running it around the U.K? There has never been a time during the cold War when Russian tracked Armour was ever seen on a British road, so how can anyone argue that Wide Russian armour, for example, must be allowed to run on British roads in order to preserve History?

 

Mike,

 

Have you checked and are you prepared to state that your recently purchased 101 Land Rover is fully compliant with construction and use regs?

[antarmike]

Mike,

 

Have you checked and are you prepared to state that your recently purchased 101 Land Rover is fully compliant with construction and use regs?

As far as I know, it is, If you think it is not please PM me with details and I will see what can be done. At this point in time I am not aware of any issues. As far as I know all the units on the 101, have been used on other civilian vehicles, including the brakes. The I/R relays have been disabled, and the six way light switch has been reworked, so you cannot get just front markers or just rear markers. Convoy light positions are disabled....At 1977 light do not need approval marks....No not aware of any problem areas...

Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike

[ArtistsRifles]

Is a 14 year old stormer really Historic?

 

At what age does history begin or need preserving?

 

Does a vehicle need to be on the road to be preserved or for history to be made available to all?

 

If the Army only used tracked armour on the road for training purposes, (in preperation for a war in which they would travel on road) but when it wanted to get tracked armour from A to B it preferred low loading/ Tank Transporter ops., then is being on the road a vital part of keeping history in the public eye?

 

Is HMS Belfast not serving to keep Naval History alive, even though it no longer sails the seven seas? No one says it is not a valid piece of history because it is permenantly at anchor.

 

Cannot a Stormer be low loaded to shows? Does it NEED to be road registered to take part in the act of preserving History?.

 

I personally think that if a vehicle is non compliant, we should accept that fact, and use it in such a way that rules are not bent or broken. In my opinion that means these vehicles are best on loaders.

 

To take this on step further, what part of history is being re-created by road registering Russian and Eastern bloc Armour and running it around the U.K? There has never been a time during the cold War when Russian tracked Armour was ever seen on a British road, so how can anyone argue that Wide Russian armour, for example, must be allowed to run on British roads in order to preserve History?

 

Historic is - currently - defined as pre 1973/4 although most classic vehicle organisations would like that brought back to a rolling 25 years... Whether it will ever happen depends on how hard it is campaigned for right now.

 

The Belfast is still afloat. The Victory is not yet serves the same purpose. The Warrior is afloat and serves the same purpose. There is nothing, other than the ££££'s it would cost preventing either Belfast or Warrior from performing their function and sailing. No C&U regs apply to either vessel bar international safety standards.

 

Why do we want vehicles road registered rather than using low-loaders - because of the cost!!!

 

Bill to move 10 miles each way in 2008 = £350

Bill for W&P in 2009 = £1,000,

Bill in 2010 with show assistance = £650

 

The cost to W&P is really unavoidable - the route there for anything other than CVR(T) if not local would be a long one, factor in tiredness and the loader is safer.

The 5 miles trip would have cost an average tracked vehicle around 5 gallons of fuel - at today's prices around £25 to £30. That's a hell of a difference if going to local shows. Even if a pair of fully legal Landrovers were used as escorts and the tracked vehicle owner paid their fuel as well it would still be a lot less than the low-loader cost.

How many people would want to drive further than 10 or 20 miles at most given the max speed on resilient pads is 20 mph and in traffic it would be a lot less - nearer 5 mph most of the time...

 

The Army could use low loaders/transporters because they had them..... These - like base repair facilitiess are luxuries we do not have. If it means keeping service men and women in employ then I'd be all for the DfT/MoD offering their services to us at a reasonable rate - not whatever the greedy politicos think they can gouge us for....

 

As for your "one step" further - I never, ever, mentioned vehicles belonging to overseas forces - the gist of this thread was UK vehicles only and that is ALL that was under discussion.

Therefore I take this as yet another personal attack and quite frankly I am getting pee'd big time both by them and by your attitude to the whole topic!!

 

However - if you want to include it then - as we are under the dominion of the EU which now includes the likes of Poland and the Czech Republic - then the "reciprocal arrangements" should also cover military history - and the only transport the former Warsaw Pact states used was rail. It's not unheard of for tracked armour to be driven hundreds of miles on it's own tracks..... However - this is irrelevant as far as this thread is concerned.

[xtreme]

I can accept points that if a vehicle is not compliant then it shouldnt be registered . This post was started because in my opinion the Stormer meets C&U and is within width . why I want it road registered is irrelevant however I will explain . I Live on a country road I can store the vehicle at my house . 500yards up the queens highway is my access gate to my off road course . Am I expected to low load it every time I want to take it out when I should be able to road register it with DVLA's own Guidelines .

 

Just because some pen pusher in the DVLA have decided they dont want to register MV's everyone has to accept that decision . Bullsh-t dvla cant just make the rules up as they go along.

[LoggyDriver]

As far as I know, it is, If you think it is not please PM me with details and I will see what can be done. At this point in time I am not aware of any issues. As far as I know all the units on the 101, have been used on other civilian vehicles, including the brakes. The I/R relays have been disabled, and the six way light switch has been reworked, so you cannot get just front markers or just rear markers. Convoy light positions are disabled....At 1977 light do not need approval marks....No not aware of any problem areas...

 

 

 

What year did you say lights need approval markings? There are a lot of post 1986 (?) vehicles that still have the "Ruby" type light lenses and as far as I can remember these don't have approval marks on them.

 

What's the 6 way switch got to do with anything? They are perfectly legal without modification. You can't have the front lights on their own. It's tail, side and tail, headlight side and tail. Being able to have the tail lights on only comes in handy if you need to pull over in the dark.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

As far as registering tracked armour goes, why not!!! As far as I'm concerned, if the Army are allowed to drive these vehicles on the road then so should the public. What about these massive Traction Engines that do 5 MPH? Why allow these on the road, but not a modern CVRT? As long as you have a licence to drive the vehicle, a Commander and the vehicle is safe then what's the problem? Why put these types of vehicles up for sale otherwise? If they are taking this stand then they should not be offering these vehicles for sale to private individuals. They are only too pleased to take your money, but then turn round and say "sorry old chap, thanks for giving us your hard earned cash in the financial crisis, but we couldn't possibly allow you to drive that on the road"! Obviously driving a Challenger II would be out of the question, but a CVRT??? There are plenty of these already registered. If they are not prepared to register them then they shouldn't be selling them. Do what the Americans do, scrap them. Only sell what can be used.

Edited October 20, 2010 by LoggyDriver
additional info