Jump to content

Mobile Project Vehicles


Recommended Posts

Yet again you misrepresent what I have said. Of course you must apply to have your vehicle registered by the DVLA as a mobile project vehicle. I have been trying all through this discussion that if you meet the conditions of the act then I cannot see why you put up all these red herrings about HGV licences, Medical tests, eye sight tests. No of these things are mentioned in the permissions. If you can satisfy the relevant people that you will only use the vehicle from the place of keeping to the place of exhebition etc. and only use the vehicle for that purpose then anyone is perfectly entitled to this exemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My point is that some people may be trying to find an alternative to passing the HGV medical, and going for MPV vehicle may be for that reason. Are you suggesting that if someone can't pass an HGV medical, that trying to find a way round it by stretching the definition of MPV to more than was intended, and thus gaining permission to drive a MV most of us recognise needs an HGV to drive is a good idea?

 

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is:

 

 

  • The requirements for a HGV license are based on someone sitting behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle used for hire and rewards and driving many thousands of miles per year. Usually at speeds of between 56 and 70 mph (and yes, I have been aovertaken whilst doing 70 in a car by a 40 tonne European registerd artic). There is one hell of a discrepancy between that and some one who does maybe 200 miles a year at 30 mph or less - IIRC the Army reckoned the average speed of a Militant to be 19 mph taken over a whole journey

  • Whatever the definition of an MPV is - if some feels that they comply with those requirements then that is down to them.

  • There is a very real need for a seperate HGV test - a non-vacational one that cannot be used to gain work - to cover the gap. The powers-that-be though do not recognize this.

  • Unless or until that happy day of non-vocational testing arrives all MV owners can do - if for whatever reason they cannot hold a vocational HGV - is exercise care and attention above normal and be exemplorary road users.

 

Speaking for myself - I held a HGV1 (taken on the Antar), a HGV2 (taken on the Militant and a HGV3 (taken on the RL) but cannot get them back because of the epilepsy. I have no desire to go back driving HGV's for a living, hence no need for a vocational HGV and all the grief that goes with it now, but do have a full, unrestricted car license on which I drive my Stalwart.

 

Are you saying I should sell the Stalwart and go get something pre whatever the cut-off point is for a Historic Commercial?? In which case the vehicle of choice would be a 1950's Scammell Super Constructor rated at 200 tons draw that would, in your worst case scenario, do a lot more damage than a Stalwart.

 

Or are you saying some like me should not be allowed to drive at all???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that a MPV carries the play equipment, or educational/instructional material. The MPV itself isn't the educational material. I am not so sure that a vehicle that is itself an exhibit, can actually be a MPV. If you had a low-loader to take a MV to a show. The Low-loader would be the MPV and the MV would be the educational/instructional equipment that is carried by it. For this reason I believe that it is highly unlikely that a MV can be viewed as an MPV. The low loader would have to be dedicated to this one task, never carry any general cargo, never carry a MV to any destination other than from show to show, and to a place of storage, never be used for hire and reward etc. It would make ownership of the Low loader very un-economic.

 

The MPV class is typically a bus, that carries play equipment, is kitted out with projectors, whiteboard, computers etc to give training or instrustion, or carries a mobile exhibition.

 

The bus itself is totally unremarkable, and in the case of carrying exhibition material, may actually be a lorry.

 

I know one person who carries police memorabilia around in a coach, and people enter it to view the material. I know another coach that carries model dioramas of battle scenes. These ARE MPV in sense the class was intended to be used.

 

Then how difficult is it to make some display boards, with photos and vehicle details, and other relevant articles to display, and carry them on your MV on the way to a show, road run, off road event, where at one time or other it is likely to be parked with the items "displayed"?

 

Is there a quantity or weight of such material required? Has anyone tried to do this?

 

I suspect as usual with this topic, and many of the other "legal" issues discussed before, it would almost certainly come down to the opinions of a particular official, on a particular day. Some would see no problem and grant the change without a second thought, whilst others others would laugh in your face and tell you absolutely no chance!

 

This is in the same league as having a Scammell Explorer registered as a tractor, as some are, or a mobile crane as some are, and yet once set as an Historic Vehicle I believe it is very hard to get a pre 1960 truck/ vehicle re-classified?

 

Jules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that some people may be trying to find an alternative to passing the HGV medical, and going for MPV vehicle may be for that reason. Are you suggesting that if someone can't pass an HGV medical, that trying to find a way round it by stretching the definition of MPV to more than was intended, and thus gaining permission to drive a MV most of us recognise needs an HGV to drive is a good idea?

 

Im with Antarmike on this, why would you try and avoid proper training and a medical, i for one wouldnt be happy about somebody who only drives a big MV a few times a year, on a tenuous loophole driving anywhere near my family or friends, i think a certain personal responsibility and common sense comes into play here, instead of trying to find every way out of doing it properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since a great majority of the large MV's driven by people are pre 1960, the drivers do not require an HGV licence, nor do the vehicles require an M.O.T. They are not only enthusists who in many cases know their vehicle better than any driver who drove them whilst in service, but since they own them they tend to be driven on the road with mechanical "sympathy". Who wants to smash their pride and joy?

 

Tracked vehicles of all ages, may require a tracked vehicle licence, but that can be obtained manouvering a mini digger around a set of cones in a field rather than a road test in an armoured vehicle. No M.O.T. test, and no medical required!

 

Judging by the cost of insurance for MV's which surely must be the best and most informed guide to the risk involved, from my own cost for two large trucks, the risk must be very low. Yet I can drive the Explorer on a car licence, but the Militant being post 1960, needs an HGV class C, and I have to go through the hassle of testing it annually, and will have to sort medicals etc at the age of 45 to keep driving it? All for less than 1000 miles a year.

 

If there is a loophole in changing to MPV, then why not use it. As with any rule, regulation, people will often use it to their benefit if possible, and why not? How many people have used their Reo's or Deuces to move house, or help a friend out by moving something that wont fit in the car, or towed a mates MV home (C + E?)?.....

 

If there comes a point where either I'm no longer fit to drive, or my vehicles are not fit for the road, then I won't be coming to the show, whatever class the vehicle is!

 

Jules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What some people are saying, as I understand it, is that one can't, on one's own judgement alone, declare one's vehicle to be exempt, for this reason or that, unless the vehicle is clearly, beyond doubt, exempt in a way acceptable to the authorities. It's not enough to believe one has found a loophole and to go out on the road hoping for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that people shouldn't go the MPV route because they really oought to be taking a medical and passing an HGV.

 

I am saying that taking an HGV has definite advantages, and getting HGV training improves driving skills. I feel it is worth doing to avoid all questions of wether you can drive a particlar vehicle.

 

I am saying that , in my opinion, and that is all it is, most MVs, used the way they are do not meet the criteria for MPV because they are definitely not recreational in the sense of a "play bus", they are not educational, as their primary purpose for being at a show, and they do not carry an exhibit as such. The Idea of an MPV as an exhibit vehicle, is that a permanent exhibition is carried within the vehicle, and the public enter the MPV to see the exhibit, not the MPV.

 

If the exhibit is a few display boards, they could be carried to a show in a car, and there is no need for a special vehicle to carry the exhibit, as its primary role and sole reason for being on the road. Let us be clear MPV isn't a route open if you wish to tow a living van type Brockhouse trailer. and for this reason a lot of MVs , in the way they are used cannot be seen as MPV's. MPV are used solely to take a mobile exhibition to a show, they are not a means of taking living accomodation along. They are not a means of taking ones own accomodation, tents, cookers etc to a show, They should carry an exhibition/ instructional media, AND NOTHING ELSE.

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again antarmike you are missing by a mile the point I strive to make. I an not advocating regestering anyones military vehicle as an MPV. I am pointing out an exemption in law for a person who may wish to transport their MV to a show on the back of a more modern lorry can contact the DVLA and if they agree that the person applying is complying with the legal requirements then thats fine. All the comments about passing an HGV test are negated by the fact that most of you seem quite happy for scammel drivers Hippo drivers and drivers of various large MV to drive on a car licence. They are taking advantage of their rights under the law. Why shouldnt people who may have a legitimate case apply for an Mpv exemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again antarmike you are missing by a mile the point I strive to make. I an not advocating regestering anyones military vehicle as an MPV. I am pointing out an exemption in law for a person who may wish to transport their MV to a show on the back of a more modern lorry can contact the DVLA and if they agree that the person applying is complying with the legal requirements then thats fine. All the comments about passing an HGV test are negated by the fact that most of you seem quite happy for scammel drivers Hippo drivers and drivers of various large MV to drive on a car licence. They are taking advantage of their rights under the law. Why shouldnt people who may have a legitimate case apply for an Mpv exemption.

 

I have answered that one I thought in my post #21. My comments above were answering points made by other contributors to this topic.

 

But to repeat roughly what I have already said, Yes , I see where you are coming from, but as I say, the low-loader could only be used to move an exhibition item.

You could not for example take your MV for a day playing on Slab Common, you could not carry anything, at any time that was not an exhibition item/ instructional tool. As I did say, if you were to buy an HGV low loader for this purpose it would not be very cost effective, seeing as you could never earn any money with the Loader, moving general loads etc. You could not collect vehicles for restoration, project vehicles and the like. You can only take an exhibition to the point where it will be displayed.

 

You could not carry anything else at the same time, Nothing for example you may want to sell or swap, you can't bring back items you have bought at the show. I do not see you could take cooking equipment unless it is a field cooker, and you intend to show the public now one is lit, and used! I am not sure you could take any beer with you. The idea doesn't go any distance with me, it is so restrictive owning an MPV , in regard to what we actually do, as to be next to useless. (in my opinion).

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(i) to or from the place where the equipment it carries is to be, or has been, used, or the display or exhibition is to be, or has been, mounted, or

 

(ii) to or from the place where a mechanical defect in the vehicle is to be, or has been, remedied

 

 

Why would anyone want to register as a MPV in the first place... you can only drive to & from a place of exhibition... you would not be able to take part in road runs with your mates or just go for a drive out.... no taking part in Pageants such as the Queens Pageant & TA100 we took part in over the last two years. No driving around at shows as the road traffic act applies at show grounds.. etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would anyone want to register as a MPV in the first place... you can only drive to & from a place of exhibition... you would not be able to take part in road runs with your mates or just go for a drive out.... no taking part in Pageants such as the Queens Pageant & TA100 we took part in over the last two years. No driving around at shows as the road traffic act applies at show grounds.. etc...

 

I don't believe it Lee, for once I actually seem to be agreeing with you!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would an MPV low loader, moving an exhibit around require an operators licence? Will it be exempt plating and Testing?

 

I believe yes, they would require plating and testing, I also can see no exception for MPV's for operators licence, but I have looked or thought to hard.

 

IF either, or both, of these are required, is MPV worth looking at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For goodness sake, did I say use a low loader men, NO. All I have said in essence is you have a right under the law to apply, if you think you qualify, for an MPV grant of exemption. How the hell did you go from that to Low Loaders.I took the trouble to phone the DVLA today. I spoke to an adviser who also asked her supervisor to listen in on my query. I asked her to look at sub-para ii, note para ii not sub-para.i. I asked her to listen to a hypothetical question on thes para. I said, if I went out and bought a WWII half-trak weighing aboue 7.5 tons and I wished to take it to shows and Fetes and the like, and because of the cost of tracks I would wish to carry it on a larger BEVORTAIL LORRY capeable of taking the weight, and once I arrived at the place of exebition etc. Talked to anyone who was curios about this half track, and therefor I in essence was educating them and instructing them, what did she make of that. The two at the other end of the phone both said that was a perfectly legitimate case for an MPV. A lot of you seem to have a problem with this piece of legislation, putting up so many red herrings that maybe the fishing quota has run out.Not a word from anyone on the acceptance by you all of car licence holders driving Hippos, DimondT etc, Not a peep about living Quarters in the rear of said lorries, as I said previously, a taboo subject . If not go ahead and try to give me some stick on both subjects. John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two at the other end of the phone both said that was a perfectly legitimate case for an MPV

 

 

That means absolutley nothing when talking to the DVLA... always get stuff like that in writing... I could phone them 5 minutes later & get a completely different answer.... suprised they knew what a half-track was:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackpowder, I got to low loaders because of the lack of detail in your posts, and the totally non specific nature of your previous posts. You never mentioned what vehicle might be carried, we we talking generally, and the only vehicle expressely referred to in this thread is a mk 3 Militant recovery. You can try to find a beaver tail to carry that if you like, but I would use a low loader. Staying with my point though, if a modern lorry is used it may well require both plating and testing, and an operators licence. An operators licence would need a CPC. I cannot see any advantages of going the MPV route that outweigh the disadvantages. I am thinking in terms of my vehicles and how a MPV would benefit me, when I make the comments I do, and there isn't one that would go on anything but a low-loader, I was trying to give information to other, not to specifically answer what you want to do.

 

I thought this was a friendly forum, We are talking about the subject in general terms, and that is why I made the comment. If you want to be specific, after I have made a post, when previously you have made no reference to any vehicle, please don't make me out to be an idiot.

 

You make a bad case for yourself, because your primary reason for wanting to carry the half-track is to save track wear. The primary reason for a MPV is to get an exhibition item to an audience.. You have a self mobile exhibit, that , to save you money in maintenace and track repairs, you wish to take on an MPV. That is not the same scenario, as someone wanting to take, say a collection of Roman coins, and old artefacts, to a show, where clearly the exbition items require carrying because there is no other way to move them.

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a peep about living Quarters in the rear of said lorries, as I said previously, a taboo subject . If not go ahead and try to give me some stick on both subjects. John

 

I, and others like me, have made you point time and time again on this board, but in other posts. As a newbie to the board, you might like to catch up with previuos threads and past posts, because plenty of people, myself included, agree with you on this, but we have said it all so many times in the past, we no longer have the will to go over it all over again.

 

I am only replying about MPV as it is the first time I am aware it has really come up on this board.

 

I do not agree with you comments re driving Hippo's and the like, personally I think it is acceptable, on a car licence, provided the vehicle is safe, the driver competant, and he or she is fully complying with all aspects of the law. However I think it is better, even if you can drive one without an HGV to nevertheless take the test.

 

But I will say no more about this because that does not relate directly to this topic.

 

Please find some time to review previous threads and topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear antar mike, I said nothing about objecting to a car licence holder driving Hippo"s or Diamond T they have a legal rite to do so. Its the fact that very many of these vehicles are kitted out in the resar as camper wagons with sinks, cookers etc. in which case theri permission is invalidated and they are driving illegally because the permission states quite clearly No goods are to be carried. If I am driving my car with ,say, my grandchildren in it and I see a Diamond T for example in my mirror and for what ever reason he crashes into the back of me and it is later found that he has all this gear in the back, who do I make a claim for the damage. Not his insurance, his insurance is invalidated.He is driving with no insurance, no mot,no suitable driving licence, in short he is in deep***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thorny subject, looking at the information from the DVLA web sheets it seems that a MV or a MV transporter can be classed as a MPV and driven on a car licence. What is strange is the wording has changed, last time I looked the wording went along the lines of “equipment permanently fixed”, does any one else remember the transporter that had a tank welded by the tracks to it doing the rounds some years ago, looks like the permanently fixed has been dropped.

English law and in particular traffic law has lots of loop holes that can be exploited and some people make lots of money each year making the most of these loop holes. But if the worst happens and you end up in front of the beak how do you demonstrate that you were competent to drive a particular vehicle?

Lets put it another way, you decide you want to start horse riding. Would you just buy a horse, jump on and set off down a busy dual carriage way, there isn’t a law saying you have to have a licence or pass a test first, but common sense tells you to have some lessons first and become competent to do so.

If you can not demonstrate competence to drive a particular vehicle, you may quite easily be prosecuted for reckless driving or driving without due care and attention, if someone is killed there is a better than average chance you will end up behind bars.

There are lots of ways of proving competence but by far the easiest way is to pass a test. It doesn’t really matter how you twist the law, if you are not competent to do something common sense tells you, you shouldn’t be doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...