Mobile Project Vehicles

[antarmike]

This is the extract from the Act.

 

You are quoting in what circumstances a person may drive an MPV , I am quoting the definition of an MPV. The two are not the same but both must be concidered.

Edited February 25, 2009 by antarmike

[Blackpowder44]

Good, you have now both had a look at the permissions, I had already put them on one of my earlier posts. Now you have read them what can you possibly object to anyone who may wish to apply for an exemption.

[antarmike]

All my objections are already posted, perhaps you may have missed them , I was aware of the definition, when I made my first post. I have only just got round to posting it for everyone, to bring it closer to my comments on it, so that people can see my objection side by side with the definition. The definition is the basis for all my objections. see previous posts

In particular, Re your idea of using a beaver tail to move a half-track see my post #72.

Edited February 26, 2009 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

Taken straight from DVLA’s INF52- Special Licensing Arrangements for Large Vehicles

® mobile project vehicles – having

a maximum authorised mass

exceeding 3.5 tonnes and

constructed or adapted to carry

not more than 8 persons in

addition to the driver and carries

principally goods or burden

consisting of;

(i) play or educational equipment

and articles required in

connection with the use of

such equipment, or

(ii) articles required for the

purposes of display or of an

exhibition, and the primary

purpose of which is used as

a recreational, educational

or instructional facility when

stationary.

Drivers must be aged 21 and have held a

category B licence for at least 2 years. A

mobile project vehicle may only be driven

on behalf of a non-commercial body.

However, drivers who passed their car test

before 1 January 1997 are not subject to

these conditions.

The wording that I find confusing is “principally goods or burden consisting of;” does this mean a vehicle registered / Taxed as a MPV can be used for occasional carriage of other goods providing the driver has the relevant licence to do so? And if not for hire or reward no O licence?

Taken from V112G Goods Vehicle Testing – Declaration of Exemption

14. Vehicles constructed or adapted for, and used primarily for the purpose of carrying equipment permanently fixed to the vehicle which equipment is used for medical, dental, veterinary, health, educational, display, clerical or experimental laboratory purposes, such use

a. not directly involving the sale, hire or loan of goods from the vehicle; and

b. not directly or indirectly involving drain cleaning or sewerage or refuse collection.

Again the wording “used primarily for the purpose of carrying equipment permanently fixed to the vehicle” What’s other peoples view on permanently fixed, Bolted on, welded on etc? I would say the bed of my Beavertail is permanently fixed but I could have it off and another body back on in about an hour with a windy gun and the Militants Crane.

[antarmike]

When I enquired of VOSA what permanently fixed meant, they said, "any method of fixing that would require a workshop operation to remove it". They wouldn't explain further, and I am as much in the dark as you are.

[Blackpowder44]

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.

Please, next time you go to an MV show, go up to any large MV owner and ascertain whether he is driving it on a car licence.If so you will be able to say you think he is using a tenuous loophole and to go and take a test and a medical. If you think that all drivers of largeMV on a car licence are a danger to you or your friends then there must be very few shows that you can attend.

[Blackpowder44]

Point is Mark is that if they are not complying with the exemption & have an accident then there is no insurance cover, other people then suffer...

 

The wording couldn't be any clearer..

 

 

Again, what about car licence holders driving large MV with all their gear in the back. You do not seem to be forthcoming on that subject.

[Blackpowder44]

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:

Another of your dismissive putdowns. At least I went to the trouble to phone to get their take on the subject. Have you.

[Marmite!!]

Another of your dismissive putdowns. At least I went to the trouble to phone to get their take on the subject. Have you.

 

 

Not a dismissive putdown, FACT... which many on here can relate to, ask Neil for one.. & yes I have spoken to them & written to them many times & have got different answers on the same questions...

 

Did you ask them to put what they said in writing? if so maybe you could post the reply up here..

[Blackpowder44]

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.

Once again you have lost the plot. The Halftrack question to the DVLA was a hypothetical one, that is what I said in my letter about phoning the DVLA So all your making a bad case for myself shows that you do not seem to read and understand fully what I have written. Have a go by all means but dont expect me not to reply to something you think I am saying, when in fact you have yet again got it all wrong.

[Blackpowder44]

Point is Mark is that if they are not complying with the exemption & have an accident then there is no insurance cover, other people then suffer...

 

The wording couldn't be any clearer..

Yet again a compleat bias against onyone who might want to drive under this exemption that falls apart because you do not "attack" drivers of large MV driving on a car licence. Me thinks a case of double standards .

[Blackpowder44]

Could not agree more, but that is the chance them morons take, and yes other people do suffer which is a shame, but there are people who will always do it regardlees of the consequences.

 

Now,a person that takes advantage of lawfull exemption is a moron, I do not think drivers of large MV would like to be called morons because they use their rite in law. Any morons . like to respond

[Marmite!!]

Yet again a compleat bias against onyone who might want to drive under this exemption that falls apart because you do not "attack" drivers of large MV driving on a car licence. Me thinks a case of double standards .

 

 

You started this thread about MPV's & that is what I'm discussing... the guys that drive the Big stuff are better placed to discuss driving of larger MV's

[Marmite!!]

Now,a person that takes advantage of lawfull exemption is a moron, I do not think drivers of large MV would like to be called morons because they use their rite in law. Any morons . like to respond

 

Ok John, I think that is enough, pulling the threads apart line by line is just trying to bait the members, as said this is a friendly forum, if you do not have anything constructive to add then please refrain from posting.

 

If you want to discuss this post then please take it to PM.

 

Just a refresher of the forum guidelines if anyone hasn't read them

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?t=517

 

Regards Lee

[Blackpowder44]

Not up on this sort of thing but the exemption is for Non Commercial Bodies only,

 

 

so would think that an operators licence was not required..:confused:

Not sure about plating?

 

The wording: would suggest the exemption is not for individuals but aimed at Charities etc.

 

You are wriggling around trying to find pitfalls and the passage is quite clear, in subsection ii,articles required etc. nothing anywhere to say charities or any other body, club, nothing. I am beginning to wonder if you can read 28 simple words and understand them, both you and antarmike seem hellbent to twist all sorts of redherrings into this permission that patently are not there. I am an ex Police officer and my son is a serving one, I asked him to look into this and he asked the Traffic prosecution department to look at the legislation using my hypothetical half track as an example. I will post their reply when I can find my wife and get her to get it out of my computer.

[ferretfixer]

................& that concudes the case for the prosecution M'laud!

[Blackpowder44]

All my objections are already posted, perhaps you may have missed them , I was aware of the definition, when I made my first post. I have only just got round to posting it for everyone, to bring it closer to my comments on it, so that people can see my objection side by side with the definition. The definition is the basis for all my objections. see previous posts

In particular, Re your idea of using a beaver tail to move a half-track see my post #72.

Half track if you look at what I said in my letter to the dvla it in I said it washypothetical one. Used as an example to the person I was talking. I do not own a half track never have never will. you said in one of your posts, do not rember the exact words, but on the lines that I implied that you were an idiot. Dont need to you are doing a great job on your own

[ArtistsRifles]

Not a dismissive putdown, FACT... which many on here can relate to, ask Neil for one.. & yes I have spoken to them & written to them many times & have got different answers on the same questions...

 

Did you ask them to put what they said in writing? if so maybe you could post the reply up here..

 

Agreed Lee!

 

For the record in case Blackpowder44 has missed the other threads on this Forum relating - I spoke to both the DVLA and VOSA on the phone regarding what needed to be done to get my OT-90 road legal at the end of Sept. 2007. They told me I needed to:

 

 

• Get rubber track pads fitted

• Get all the lighting upgraded to UK spec inc. indicators, fog and reverse lamp

• Get a rear-view camera fitted due to the obstructed (turret) rear vision,

 

This little lot set me back £11,500. I meant to get confirmation in writing but the unfortunate incident in OCt 2007 that hospitalized me canned that idea and when I did go to register it I was basically told to b*gg*r off as Vosa had changed the rules in January 2007 limiting the width of any vehicle on UK roads to 2.56 Metres. When I spoke to them on the phone I told them the OT was 2.9 metres wide, 8.5 mtres long and weighed in at 14 tones (hence the requirement for track pads) and the tw*ts the other end from both branches never mentioned this rule change at all. So now - care of VOSA and DVLA's incompetence - I'm £11,500 out of pocket and looking at having to sell the OT as I'm out of work and cannot afford the low-loader costs to get it anywhere. Last time it went out the bill was £300 to move 10 miles out and 10 miles back a few days later!! :argh:

 

So - back on the topic of this thread I would NOT trust anything either VOSA or the DVLA say over the phone - both departments are a bunch of beaurocratic incompetents who cannot be relied on to accurately give you the time of day let alone accurate infomation on the laws and regulations they are responsible for - if you want information from them get it in writing and with a real persons name and position after the signature. At least that way if it turns out they've done to you what they did to me you've a good chance of not getting done for anything!!!

[Jack]

Half track if you look at what I said in my letter to the dvla it in I said it washypothetical one. Used as an example to the person I was talking. I do not own a half track never have never will. you said in one of your posts, do not rember the exact words, but on the lines that I implied that you were an idiot. Dont need to you are doing a great job on your own

 

 

John,

 

I haven't been here much for that last couple of weeks and I may not be around for the week either. But I have just had a call this afternoon with regards to this thread - and I do not like to come back and see this sort of attitude you are giving to the other members.

 

I think is has been clearly said more than once that this is a 'friendly forum' yes it is said with a wink but it is also true. HMVF is not used to this sort of aggressive and confrontational attitude, this is just not where it is - there are plenty of other outlets for that but HMVF isn't one of them.

 

Yes I fully understand that we all talk, type and present ourselves in our own way and sometimes we can all misread the stance but please just be a little more polite and respectful to your fellow members as your posts are very destructive.

 

If you would like to chat this over then my office number is 01258 880298

 

Thank you for your understanding.

 

Regards,

 

Jack.

[antarmike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antarmike

All my objections are already posted, perhaps you may have missed them , I was aware of the definition, when I made my first post. I have only just got round to posting it for everyone, to bring it closer to my comments on it, so that people can see my objection side by side with the definition. The definition is the basis for all my objections. see previous posts

In particular, Re your idea of using a beaver tail to move a half-track see my post #72.

 

Half track if you look at what I said in my letter to the dvla it in I said it washypothetical one. Used as an example to the person I was talking. I do not own a half track never have never will. you said in one of your posts, do not rember the exact words, but on the lines that I implied that you were an idiot. Dont need to you are doing a great job on your own

 

Whether it was hyperperthetical, or a serious suggestion, please explain to me ,Blackpowder, how any loader/ beaver tail lorry, being used as an MPV, can have a primary use which Recreational, instructional/ educational, when parked up empty (stationary) having unloaded any MV at a show. The Loader/beaver tail will remain unconnected from the Exhibit for the length of the show, and the owner may even be asked to park it in a area of the field/ showground out of the public area. (a lorry park/ low loader park, or next to the exhibitors accomodation in a purely camping area.)

 

Frankly I feel you either have a bad attitude, or else you just lack people skills. You try my patience, because if you can find an aspect of a post to criticise, you do that, but don't bother to actually answer the point, or the query the post is trying to raise, or get an answer to.

 

I have very little interest in your general negativity, and I am afraid, I won't be replying to you, unless your mood improves.

 

Perhaps you would make a serious attempt to answer my post #72, and I might think a two way conversation is worthwhile.

 

Not MOT interest but this may well be worth looking at for owners who transport their vehicles to shows, bren carriers etc. Have a look on the DVLA website, under exempted large goods vehicles. This seems to sat that you may drive a vehicle well over 7.5 tons on a car licence if you meet the criteria. The place you are looking for is Mobile Project Vehicles

After all you started the topic talking about owners who "TRANSPORT" their vehicles to shows. I therefore assume it is your suggestion that MPV can apply to a transporter. I therfore feel if you want to support your arguement you try answering my post #72 on the basis we are talking about the very people you started the topic with, ie a Bren Gun carrier owner, who Transports it to a show on an "MPV" but then unloads it, and then the MPV is no longer associated with the exhibit. Explain how the primary purpose (of the MPV) when stationary, matches the legal definition, in this scenario.

 

Maybe you would be so kind as to print this out and give it to your police contact to concider, as he prepares his answer, since it might help him focus his mind on the aspect of the definition, I do not think a loader/ transporter , used as an MPV, carrying an MV to a show can meet, unless the MV stays on the MPV for the duraion of the show.

 

But as has been said elsewhere an interpretation or the application of a law, can only be determined by a court, so I am not sure I would trust the judgement of the Police in every case. I have been stopped twice for allegeded offences by the Traffic police, for a suspected offence, each time I persuaded them to talk to Masham Street before issuing a ticket, which they did on both occasions, only to be told by the Ministry of Transport, that I was lawful, and they let me go about my business.

Edited February 26, 2009 by antarmike

[Stormin]

I've been observing this thread for a while but been reluctant to post as it's developed into a heated argument.

But here's my take on it.

If people on here can read the same words and form very different opinions then surely there would be a good defence case in court should someone fall foul. If the regulations as written are unclear then it is asking for people to take advantage of loopholes. Whether they remain loopholes or get clarification can only be decided after a court hearing. Getting something in writing from someone at VOSA wouldn't be enough of a defence on it's own.

[Marmite!!]

If people on here can read the same words and form very different opinions then surely there would be a good defence case in court should someone fall foul.

 

 

Remember, ignorance is not a defence in Law...

Edited February 26, 2009 by Marmite!!

[Adam Elsdon]

do not rember the exact words, but on the lines that I implied that you were an idiot. Dont need to you are doing a great job on your own

 

Just came back to have a look at this thread, what on earth is this descending into?

 

Please somebody, do this thread a favour and lock it out.

[Marmite!!]

Just came back to have a look at this thread, what on earth is this descending into?

 

Please somebody, do this thread a favour and lock it out.

 

It will remain open for now & we are keeping an eye on it..

[mcspool]

Whether they remain loopholes

 

Loopholes or not, all I hope is that people driving big honking old trucks know what they are doing! Having the appropriate driver's license is the minimum requirement in my opinion.

 

In Holland you need a truck driver's license for EVERY type of vehicle weighing more than 3500 kg. Period.

 

Tractors were a well known loophole, 16 year young lads driving huge tractors with even bigger trailers or machinery with sharp bits all over them, hmmm. At last someone had a good think over it, and from now on tractor driver's will need licenses too.

 

My EUR 0,02 worth,

Hanno