latest dvla problem

[Tony B]

Ah gentleman, but :-D As far as an MOT goes- At the time of Examination! Ten seconds later a total irelevance. :banghead: Don't forget, if you have a failed bulb, during daylight , even if the lights are not on..... :police:

I wonder if you stopped any vehicle at random, would it comply with every regulation? Just as an example, if you are ever forced to ride on a bus, slap the seats. If dust comes up, kick off! the vehicle isn't fit for service.

 

And warn Rosie! It is still an offence for a lady to eat choclate on an Omnibus! Considered lewd behaviour.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Tony B

[antarmike]

So are you saying that all vehicles fitted with a standard 6 way switch are on the roads illegaly? That's a hell of a lot of vehicles. When you operate the switch the lights go out for a split second. Unless you hold the switch between positions you can't notice this. I think hairs are being split here. Such zealous interpritation of the rules is exactly why this country has been flushed down the toilet.

What pedantic twaddle. The law requires that you park with sidelights on. Anybody who feels that sidelights going off for a fraction of a second before coming back on is illegal should perhaps stay indoors and leave the roads to those who are more pragmatic. :-)

 

I was asked what I saw as a facetious question about my 101, and I saw no relevance to the thread, I saw it as an attempt to embarrass me, so I thought I would give the daftest answer I could. Namely that the six way switch was the only thing I could think of, that possibly could be considered as non compliant.

 

Had I not been asked the question, I wouldn't have given such a daft reply.....

 

Don't tell I, tell he, That's my philosophy, as Johnny "Crowman" Miles so famously sings......

 

But having brought it up, it does seem relevant to a nit picking VOSA inspection that is on the cards.....Not just for Stormer but maybe for a lot of other vehicles, whose compliance with C and U, and lighting regs could well be questioned next.....

Edited October 21, 2010 by antarmike

[steveo578]

Tony B

And warn Rosie! It is still an offence for a lady to eat choclate on an Omnibus! Considered lewd behaviour.

 

That's a new one:-) I thought the consumption of erotic substances clause -in the Horse Omibus Act 1823 was repealed as the old nag died:-D.

 

Steve

[griff66]

i wonder if some of these conversations should be done at p.m level;)

[tankie88]

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.Doesn't the military have Crown excemption on most things.Like C and U regs? Hence chieftain never had brake lights or indicators and seat belts.

[steveo578]

tankie88

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

 

Yes the statute covering vehicles owned and operated by the military was covered in the previous/related thread about Xtremes run in with the DVLA.

[VULCANFREAK]

the DVLA is not the LAW, it may seem like it at times because they are socio politically charged without proper regulation and think they can generally do what they want, tinged with a bit of European legislation which most of Europe ignores but the UK implement with zealous abandon...

 

anyone who thinks that it is meant to be milimetrically exact falls into the exact same trap..nuts to believe that is how it is meant o be implemented.

 

2.55m is the maximum width...why, because if all vehicles were wider it cost billions to operate a wider road system especially when in road works etc etc, it would be impossible to manage the road system as is, okay I agree this is good sense to have a guide line, if the few hundred military vehicles that are on the road constitute any proportion of the 22 million car users and over 40 million registered vehicles that it is worth considering banning them off the road is ludicrous. We demand no more consideration other than the fact that they are vehicles they will be used for pleasure mostly and bring pleasure to many people in the UK,...that should be enough to relax the rules..full stop...no more need for justification. nothing to do with historic or the fact the army used them at all.

 

DVLA are not the LAW....and should not be trusted as they have no sense or perception or balance...they are not to be trusted with our roads...

 

At last somone mentioned `pleasure` this is the only reason i am involved in mv`s

driving mv`s on the road IS FUN !

low loading mv`s to shows is NOT FUN

hands up who actually drives their vehicles :laugh:

[xtreme]

Xtreme may believe his vehicle complies with C and U, but does he believe it is compliant with Lighting regs. Would he like to go away and measure the distance from the outside of a headlight, to the extreme of bodywork on that side of the vehicle, and come back and tell us whether it is greater than 400mm or not.

 

Can he also look at all his other lights and reflectors and confirm all have an approval mark or a British Standards mark.

 

Then we will have a basis for deciding whether DVLA decision to refuse to register because it does not comply with lighting regs (one of two reasons stated) is a right decision or not.

 

Standard cvrt head lights have no markings and are over 400mm from the outside of the vehicle . For road use they have been modified with hella e marked lights that have been placed 350mm from the outer edge of the vehicle . on the rear the lights are less than 400mm from the edge of the vehicle and and e mark however there is no rear fog . a standard e mark fog has be fitted . standard military reflectors have no markings so additional e mark reflectors have been stuck on the rear . C&U lighting regs is a simple conversion for someone wanting to road register a vehicle . Secondary braking is also present by the means of a hand operated lever the operates a totally different set of discs and brakes that the main foot brake .

 

Hope this satisfies dvla and yourself .

[xtreme]

Spoke with terry till from the MVT today . he confirmed he has spoken to the DVLA Policy dealing with my case , They confirmed to him that they didnt want tracked MV's Running on the roads . This is been brought up at there next committee meeting in November .

 

As I have only been a member of the MVT for the past 6 months I have no experience on how the MVT handle affairs but hope that they dont take DVLA's actions lightly . As the Main association for MV's I would like to see them take on DVLA to protect all Military vehicle owners.

[Stormin]

Spoke with terry till from the MVT today . he confirmed he has spoken to the DVLA Policy dealing with my case , They confirmed to him that they didnt want tracked MV's Running on the roads . This is been brought up at there next committee meeting in November .

 

As I have only been a member of the MVT for the past 6 months I have no experience on how the MVT handle affairs but hope that they dont take DVLA's actions lightly . As the Main association for MV's I would like to see them take on DVLA to protect all Military vehicle owners.

 

As I said before it was deleted. You'd have been better of registering as plant or agricultural vehicle. There's plenty of tracked plant about on the roads. Don't see much difference between MV's and plant.

[antarmike]

Standard cvrt head lights have no markings and are over 400mm from the outside of the vehicle . For road use they have been modified with hella e marked lights that have been placed 350mm from the outer edge of the vehicle . on the rear the lights are less than 400mm from the edge of the vehicle and and e mark however there is no rear fog . a standard e mark fog has be fitted . standard military reflectors have no markings so additional e mark reflectors have been stuck on the rear . C&U lighting regs is a simple conversion for someone wanting to road register a vehicle . Secondary braking is also present by the means of a hand operated lever the operates a totally different set of discs and brakes that the main foot brake .

 

Hope this satisfies dvla and yourself .

 

Seems good to me, That had never really been explained before, or if it was on the board I missed it. You seem to have covered all bases there. On the basis of this it would seem to me that DVLA are after all probably wrong to refuse to register on the grounds on not meeting Lighting regs. I was under the impression ( I don't know where from) that you were offering an unmodified (apart from removal of stowage bins to reduce width), vehicle for registration.

 

The work you have done, seems to me to be enough for this vehicle to be registered.

Edited October 21, 2010 by antarmike

[andym]

Spoke with terry till from the MVT today . he confirmed he has spoken to the DVLA Policy dealing with my case , They confirmed to him that they didnt want tracked MV's Running on the roads . This is been brought up at there next committee meeting in November .

 

As I have only been a member of the MVT for the past 6 months I have no experience on how the MVT handle affairs but hope that they dont take DVLA's actions lightly . As the Main association for MV's I would like to see them take on DVLA to protect all Military vehicle owners.

 

I alerted Terry when this thread first appeared. From what I've seen in Windscreen, the MVT are very proactive when dealing with the authorities and are unlikely to take this lying down.

 

Andy

[ferrettkitt]

Spoke with terry till from the MVT today . he confirmed he has spoken to the DVLA Policy dealing with my case , They confirmed to him that they didnt want tracked MV's Running on the roads . This is been brought up at there next committee meeting in November .

 

As I have only been a member of the MVT for the past 6 months I have no experience on how the MVT handle affairs but hope that they dont take DVLA's actions lightly . As the Main association for MV's I would like to see them take on DVLA to protect all Military vehicle owners.

 

The DVLA saying that they don't want tracked MV's running on the road has to backed up with a good explanation of why they don't want them on the road and the criteria that they base that on. Just saying 'WE' as civil servants don't want them on the road isn't good enough. Its good to hear that MVT have been just as concerned about this development.

 

I still think that they 'r' basing this development on the wrong vehicle and that they require clarification to help them. Do it the right way without upsetting anyone and its more likely to have a better outcome for you and the MV hobby.

[antarmike]

As I said before it was deleted. You'd have been better of registering as plant or agricultural vehicle. There's plenty of tracked plant about on the roads. Don't see much difference between MV's and plant.

If it is only got to go 500 yds up the road to reach your off-road course, "limited use" or "works truck" spring to mind.

[Degsy]

If it is only got to go 500 yds up the road to reach your off-road course, "limited use" or "works truck" spring to mind.

 

The 'limited use' seemed an obvious option as soon as this thread started but I think it would depend on the land in question being registered as agricultural.

[antarmike]

The 'limited use' seemed an obvious option as soon as this thread started but I think it would depend on the land in question being registered as agricultural.

not only being registered agricultural, but limited use is for agric machines to go from one piece of agricultural land to another owned by the same person. The House where stormer is kept should be agric as well.

 

obviously engineering plant, and Agric machine also have restrictions as to use. It would seem that neither of these is appropriate.

 

Registering as PLG/ PHGV or whatever is the only appropruate way forward. The question is how can that be achieved?

[N.O.S.]

Erm, without wishing to be too alarmist, how about making any alterations necessary to ensure compliance with C+U and Lighting Regs? (see post no.1)

 

And it looks as if Extreme has got these well covered. As for any possible hidden agenda, he has made a good move by getting in touch with MVT. Good luck to you, and lets hope you don't get any other obstructions put in your way.

 

What might be useful would be for someone to post links to the relevent legislation - is it the 1989 Lighting Regs as ammended 2005, or something later? Are C+U Regs available online?

 

What about the handbook for HGV Examiners - that covers stuff like lighting positions I think. Mine is so old it belongs in a museum.

[Marmite!!]

What might be useful would be for someone to post links to the relevent legislation - is it the 1989 Lighting Regs as ammended 2005, or something later? Are C+U Regs available online?

.

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?18840-The-Road-Vehicles-Lighting-Regulations-1989

[Stormin]

 

What might be useful would be for someone to post links to the relevent legislation - is it the 1989 Lighting Regs as ammended 2005, or something later? Are C+U Regs available online?

 

What about the handbook for HGV Examiners - that covers stuff like lighting positions I think. Mine is so old it belongs in a museum.

 

I can't find the Construction and use regulations online but numerous various amendments upto 2010 are listed here:-

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/search?title=road+vehicles+construction+and+use&year=&number=&type=all

 

Unfortunately without the master document they do not read very well or make much sense.

 

I think the list of amendments is so vast it is surely high time the regulations were re-published.

 

Not only do the authorities wish to hide these regulations behind legalese language, statements that they are not law but only guidance for interpretation by the courts, but also the list of amendments is so vast that no-one can possibly keep up. The whole situation is not far off a joke!

 

As I've said before NO vehicle on the road is fully compliant with construction and use regulations. I was told this by a former traffic officer, he said the police needed to have reason to stop a vehicle for inspection. In reality they could stop any vehicle as if it came to argument they could always find some non compliance with construction and use regs. On that basis I see no likelihood that the regulations will ever be fully clarified. The ambiguity is to the advantage of the authorities in such cases.

[Marmite!!]

I can't find the Construction and use regulations online but numerous various amendments upto 2010 are listed here:-

 

They are not available online, SI's are only available online from January 1987 onwards http://www.opsi.gov.uk/stat.htm , you have to buy them from TSO, http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=9780110670782&From=SearchResults&TRACKID=002068

 

you can buy the amendments too

http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?action=SearchResults&FO=1159966&SimpleSearch=1&QuickSearchField=1&Keywords=construction+and+use+regulations&SortOrder=6&Direction=1&NextDoc=91&TRACKID=002068

 

Or here for a tenner.. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Road-Vehicles-Construction-and-Use-Regulatio-1986-/300472335192?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item45f58bfb58

 

He lists the Lighting regs & others that may be of interest

Edited October 22, 2010 by Marmite!!

[Jack]

They are not available online, you have to buy them from TSO, http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=9780110670782&From=SearchResults&TRACKID=002068

 

you can buy the amendments too

http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?action=SearchResults&FO=1159966&SimpleSearch=1&QuickSearchField=1&Keywords=construction+and+use+regulations&SortOrder=6&Direction=1&NextDoc=91&TRACKID=002068

 

I have to go now but if I buy these can I publish them here? Or is it copywrited?

[Marmite!!]

I have to go now but if I buy these can I publish them here? Or is it copywrited?

Crown Copyright.. you can quote from them but not publish without written permission..

 

http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=42854&TRACKID=002068

8. Intellectual Property Rights

 

You will not do, or permit to be done, anything that may detrimentally affect Our copyright, trade marks or any other intellectual property rights in the Goods.

 

 

Be quick, one on ebay http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Road-Vehicles-Construction-and-Use-Regulatio-1986-/300472335192?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item45f58bfb58

Edited October 22, 2010 by Marmite!!

[Stormin]

I have to go now but if I buy these can I publish them here? Or is it copywrited?

 

Having trouble sleeping Jack! :yawn:

 

Not much use without then printing off the list of amendments as I linked to in my previous post. Something like 102 amendments to print off and insert into the relevant pages. That'll above double the size of the original document. :rotfl:

 

It'll also make reading and deciphering it's references to "except as noted in paragraphs 2 and 9 below" even more of a challenge. Good Luck!

[ruxy]

And this is why the whole situation should be brought to the attention of The Plain English Campaign , preferably by M.V. Club(s) not by a individual.

 

We all wish to understand and educate ourselves - not to ignore. High salary best legal brains will be used to draw up all these amd. However as I stated earlier - they do not wish anybody (even the police) to be able to understand by working through it all in a logical manner.

[TooTallMike]

Having trouble sleeping Jack! :yawn:

 

Not much use without then printing off the list of amendments as I linked to in my previous post. Something like 102 amendments to print off and insert into the relevant pages. That'll above double the size of the original document. :rotfl:

 

It'll also make reading and deciphering it's references to "except as noted in paragraphs 2 and 9 below" even more of a challenge. Good Luck!

Nonetheless this is what we have to do.

 

Many of us have been through these regulations numerous times when restoring old, unusual or foreign vehicles or preparing them for inspection or test. For example: when I restored the MUTT I had to research seat belt law, lighting law, braking etc.; When converting my late Series 1 Land Rover, Ward LaFrance and other vehicles' indicators to whites & reds I reserached lighting law. This is a necessary part of the hobby for those of us who want to drive unusual vehicles because you need to be able to defend what you are doing as being within the law. Unfortunately whether or not you agree with the law is not relevant - you must still comply with it. Please feel free to campaign to have it changed but in the interim we have what we have.

 

Someone earlier in the thread bemoaned the fact that all this discussion of rules and regs is preventing us from having fun. Well, the type of fun we have chosen as our hobby comes with responsibility. Hobbies such as gardening or stamp collecting do not have specific legal frameworks within which people must operate. Vehicle collectors do: the risk of transgressing these laws carries sanctions varying from fines, to points on your license, to revocation of license, to prison sentences. Given this context it seems wise to be fully informed so that you are doing everything you can to be correct.

 

- MG