julezee001

If it's road registered, and M.O.T. exempt I might have to give it a go!

Jules

Does it say where the Milly is?

Jules

Fortunately as it was manufactured in 1954 it is M.O.T test exempt as long as it is not used commercially. Also as it was manufactured before 1960 it can be driven by anyone with a car licence (manual). It would of course need to be both insured and in a roadworthy condition to drive on the public highway.

They are good solid, and relatively reliable trucks, and are certainly worth saving.

Jules

10/10 for your efforts Mike, sorry to hear that VOSA did not attend.

Somewhat predictable in our "democracy" these days. Faceless bureaucrats making decisions on our behalf, with key ones failing to meet representatives of the main people that they will affect, namely a tiny minority of the motoring community? Maybe something more important came up, such as making a computerised M.O.T sytem that uses and wastes tons more paper than the paper system it's replaced, removing the dual purpose vehicle class 4 test and change it to class 7, or other equally pointless or wasteful schemes? The DfT turn up and ignore (?) representations in this "consultation" process, hiding behind EU harmonisation, and with threats to anyone who might rock the boat over a rolling year of exemption! Great....

Just wait a couple more years and there might be a fatal accident involving a classic (pre 1960) truck, or an HMV, then we'll all need M.O.T. tests, or maybe we'll just be banned from the road entirely as un-necessary polluters? I hope the scrap price is up when it happens.

I guess the only thing to say, is enjoy your hobby/vehicle while you can.

Jules

Oh dear, again I am clearly not explaining myself properly. If one currently owns a post 1960 vehicle currently M.O.T. exempt, e.g. a Ferret or similar, which clearly is not an H.G.V but has a GVW of more than 3500kg, would people need an HGV licence if it required an HGV test?

Jules

sorry Jules but there is no logic to that arguement - you might as well say that a car is not used commercially, is not load carrying and so should not be tested - unless it is a company car :nut:

 

the only reason we are all objecting is because it costs money to have a test done, as you have so clearly pointed out. Therefore, trying to argue the case on the principle of fairness is not relevant since the bottom line is this is harmonisation with EU rules and stuff has to be made to fit whether it is fair or not with only a little wriggle room left for HMG to exercise its discretion within

As with all posts, I should be more specific with my writings. Clearly as the subject being discussed relates to vehicles currently exempt from testing and over 3500kgs, I guess I thought everyone understood what the thread is about. As the thread clearly doesn't refer to vehicles under 3500kg, and nearly all vehicles in that category require a test no matter how old they are, I didn't clarify it again, for which I apologise. I would guess that very few MV owners run the vehicles affected as everyday transport?

If you read the summary of the consultation, the "cost" factor for the state/taxpayer was a reason (for the consultation) presented by the people involved in the consultation. Indeed the consultation doesn't affect me in any way financially as I don't own a vehicle manufactured after 1960 which is currently exempt, however I am keen to point out the financial implications to both those who may be caught up by this and others who are not, and show that a change in the rules is not, in my view justified, based on "cost".

Whilst the "cost" to an owner is an issue as I pointed out, another issue would be driving licence categories? My Militant is 1964, has a full HGV test, and in my eyes I need an HGV licence to drive it. Do all the people with currently M.O.T. exempt armour, and other classes of vehicles over 3500kg, or 7500kg (depending on when your driving test was passed) feel the same as me? What happens if their vehicle needs a test in the future, do they need an HGV licence to drive it?

I am a bit disappointed by so many peoples comments that we have to "conform" to EU regulations, and what seems to be an "I'm alright Jack" attitude by some. As with many hobbies there are always different aspects to them all. As I am clearly stating I am not affected by THIS proposal, but I feel strongly that if those affected are not well supported and represented, then when the next "consultation" occurs, I and many others might be up a creek without a paddle?

Jules

Whilst I can understand the reason for a consultation on this subject over implementation of EU law, I fail to see why something so simple to solve can be made so complicated? If a vehicle is used commercially on the road, then test it if reasonabley possible. If it isn't used commercially, and doesn't carry a load, then exempt it, no matter how old it is. They all have to be roadworthy whether they are tested or not, if they are driven on the road, or even off road at shows.

I fail to understand how the argument over widths and vehicle definitions can be a reasonable one. Both Antars and Stalwarts are over width, but because only one fits a particular "class" that's ok and the other isn't? I was told by similar "all knowing" people that my Explorer could not be road registered unless I removed the front axle flanges to make it under 2.55m. Needless to say, I didn't remove them and it was non the less registered?

I also own a Mk1 Militant manufactured in 1964, which under the current regulations requires an HGV test. The argument from the officials is that the cost of a test is not significant in the running of a vehicle. As has been pointed out by others, for a private owner it can be a significant cost. I have covered the saga of my 2009 M.O.T elsewhere, but to sum up it cost me 3 days off work, £100 in fuel and nearly £300 in test fees and brake tests elsewhere before the Militant gained its bit of paper. I don't entirely resent the need to test it as I'm happy to know that mechanically it is as good as it can be to run safely on the road. I could of course buy an older Militant and do away with the hassle and cost, but sadly I'm sentimentally attached, so I count it as my choice/fault.

The reason large vehicles in preservation should remain, or become M.O.T. exempt is clearly because they very rarely travel significant mileages in a year, nor do they often carry the loads that they were designed for. i.e. my Militant has travelled just over 6000 miles in the last 12 years, and only 22,500 in the last 46 years. Its GVW is 21,500kg, but has rarely exceeded 15,000kg.

The consultation document seems to show a very blinkered view of the whole issue, with a "possible" cost to the "taxpayer" of almost £6,000,000 relating to death or serious injury, which statistically might relate to MOT exempt vehicles, of which we make up a small proportion. How much do all these vehicles earn the "taxpayer", both directly from the tax on the fuel they use, vehicle excise duty, tax on the profits of the work they are used for, tax on the wages of the person driving them, maintaining them etc. In our case it is financially largely the same, with fuel duty, often excise duty on the vehicle, tax on the profits of all the shows we go to, tax on all the fuel of all the people visiting the shows..... No contest I think?

The fact that the people holding the consultation seem to have no firm figures to back a need to change (other than an increase in exempt vehicle numbers) sums up what seems to be either a totally pointless excercise, or a beginning of a longer process which will end with legislating a large proportion of older vehicles from our roads?

Jules

I used to run around with A Rubery Owen 2Ton Drop side with a box on it. They are very unstable with a high load. They rock on the cross pivot on the front Turntable. I had to weld box under the ends of the stops to reduce the travel to about 10-15mm and this made it much more stable. Don't commit to a long journey with the box on until you have been for a short run to see how stable the trailer is and how much the body rolls.

 

Mike

Totally agree with the above comment. A friend bought a similar trailer last year set up as a camper, which on the 26 mile journey up to W & P last year, looked like it was at sea on a rough day. At the very least have plastic crockery and glasses, it'll save a fortune over the years!!

Jules

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

See post 5.... good enough reason for you?

 

I've just started wearing glasses for reading for the first time, until I had my eyes tested I didn't realise how much my eyesight had deteriorated.

Uncorrected vision causes tiredness & can affect your concentration... it's not just about seeing what's in front of you...

Why did you get your eyes tested? Do you need your glasses for driving?

What are the statisics for accidents caused by bad eyesight?

Legislate all you like, people will still die and be injured on the roads. It's sad but true. The UK is one of the safest countries to drive despite the high overall density of traffic, and miles travelled. The rules are already there regarding eyesight, drink, medicated drugs, recreational drugs, M.O.T. tests, driving tests, insurance etc etc. People die every day, both young and old often not through any fault of their own (not just on the road), again sadly that's life. You can try to prevent each and every one through extra rules and regulations, but eventually you will encounter the fact of diminishing returns, and realise there are limits for all sorts of reasons, that prevent the saving of everyone!

Jules

Sorry Jules, there's nothing natural about driving a motor vehicle. Constant thought and concentration, and awareness of the damage you can cause, are the rquirments of good driving. If that sounds like a 'company' line, for all I bitch about them, yes, it IS a constant company and driver line.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly? Some people are naturally good at things? Maybe that means that they do have good concentration, and awareness, or other attributes important for driving? Other people don't, we are all different. The fact that some people pass their driving test first time, and others take 2, 5, or 30 before they pass, clearly demonstrates this. Passing the test gives people access to the roads having shown their basic understanding of what it takes to drive safely on the road, and their own ability to conform to the required standards. Clearly those who read this thread are all excellent drivers, passed all their driving tests first time, and have never had a near miss, or god forbid an accident which was their fault.

The facts are that as people grow older, the vast majority become safer drivers through experience, and the natural chemical change in most peoples physiology, makes them more cautious too. I don't believe for one moment that all the extra requirements for HGV drivers to train for 30 hours every 5 years will make the roads safer once they all have their bit of paper? Will it prevent that moments inattention? No. If you don't know how to drive your vehicle safely loaded, unloaded, in all weather conditions after 5 years, should you be doing the job at all??

Going back to the thread, I don't understand the need for the introduction of eye tests for truck drivers? Is there a terrible problem with accidents caused by blind truckers? Do I need someone to tell me that I can't see well enough to drive, before I consult an optician? If my living depended on it and I thought my sight was impaired, would I need legislation forcing me to have an eye test make any difference?

Jules

John Atlee is an excellent person to represent our cause, I have met him on several occasions over the years with his Scammell, or the Antar. His advantage is the connections that he has within the system. However, he is but one of over 1000 people involved in the legislative process, and so to rely on him to bring about the required result, I think is wishfull thinking. Hence the importance of anyone connected with the hobby writing to their own MP, and the people involved in the drafting of the legislation, demonstrating the number of people affected, and the strength of feeling.

It is very easy to leave this to those who are going to be affected, and the few loud voices, but that often is not good enough? Sadly whilst I'm sure that almost everyone who turns out to say the War and Peace show, if asked, would disagree with the changes, probably less than 1 in 100 would actually do anything about it? I don't mean to annoy people by repeating my argument again, but the numbers possibly affected are small within the MV community, and within the general population are totally insignificant? Which begs the question, why change the rules at all?

It is an important issue as I have said in my previous posts, because if the changes are not thought through, and the worst ones not fought, how soon will it be before all exemptions are removed? That would then affect a significant number of enthusiasts, who often like me run larger vehicles on very tight budgets.

Jules

Driving on the roads is statistically far safer now than it has ever been. There will always be horror stories of crashes, for an almost limitless number of reasons, because we're human! You can test all the eyes you like, and issue the licences accordingly: requires corrective lenses, etc., but it won't stop people having accidents. People forget glasses, others with perfect eyesight drive with screens which give the impression of a foggy day when you try to peek out.

Some people are naturally good at sport, driving, writing, sewing, shooting, some aren't? Some are naturally cautious, some totally wreckless? Statistics show that as people gain experience on the road , for the large majority, their driving improves, so why burden them with extra expense and hassle when they really aren't the problem. Life is dangerous!

Jules

Sorry, I don't mean to make it seem a small issue through my describing the numbers involved as "few", or "a tiny minority", but the reality is that that is the case as far as I can see it? Check the listings in the War and Peace show program? How many jeeps, how many Landrovers etc., how many trucks pre-1960, and then how many post 1960 whch are covered by current exemptions? My Mk1 Militant 1964 is one of many that are not covered and already need a test, which I am happy to warn is an annual pain in the @@@@!! The numbers as a share of the total in our hobby are relatively low. However I don't mean to make out that it's a small issue, as it could be the tip of an iceburg of possible rule changes which may affect everyone in our hobby.

The sad fact is that a very large number of major decisions are made on our behalf by people who have had no experience of our hobby, and hence have no understanding of the knock on effects; e.g. health and safety, deactivated/replica firearms, export licences, wearing of rank/uniforms, arbitrary (and pointless?)width regulations. They don't all have an effect on me, but I am passionate about defending our rights to enjoy and share the all encompassing hobby we are all involved in.

I stress again that it is really good that someone from outside our hobby, and involved in the decision making process, is actually taking note of our concerns, and I hope that all HMVF members will make an effort and write their own considered representations to the committee on this subject.

Jules

Would it be helpful (in clearing up some of the confusion) if at this stage we could confirm the requiremnts for using historic vehilces / trailers LADEN?

 

I don't mind starting off with what I think the requirements are - so long as any erors are of course pointed out in a polite and constructive way :whistle:

 

A pre-1973 Vehicle over 3.5t can operate LADEN with Historic Tax disc, so long as the load is not being carried for commercial purposes, provided -

 

a) it is tested, or

b) it is of a vehicle type (e.g. locomotive) which currently allows exemption from testing *

 

* If hauled by a test exempt 'locomotive', does the trailer require testing?

 

But are we in a position to define what testing standards are currently imposed on such vehicles? That would help also!

Good grief, what a thread this is. I have to admit that I've only read the last 4 or so pages, but would like to put my oar in the water.

As I understand it, a trailer of anyage with a GVW over 3.5 and used laden, whether for hire and reward, or privately requires testing. Whether this includes large living vans I am unsure, and as far as I know the only reason for an exemption from testing otherwise, is that the trailer is oversize for the testing lane; i.e. it won't fit in the rolling brake tester?

The whole idea of removing many of the exemptions seems to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut? If there is a problem with vehicles registered on distant isles, and that rule is being abused, then change that rule? Mobile cranes are also very well defined, more because of their use of red diesel and the court cases fought, than over their M.O.T. exemption! They cannot carry anything other than kit required for their proper use, and I believe they are not allowed to tow. They include concrete pumps, and almost any other vehicle with a jib/crane designed with the purpose of lifting/lowering but with no load bed for transporting a load. Surely this is a question of definition and enforcement of existing regulations.

I think that it would be greatly beneficial to provide a defined M.O.T exempt class for armoured vehicles, whether tracked or wheeled as long as they can be used without damaging the roads. As ever the onus would be on the driver to be sure the vehicle is roadworthy as it is for any vehicle whether it is tested or not! Are there any statistic to show that the current poorly defined exemption is causing danger on our roads?

It is refreshing to learn that an official involved in the drafting of the legislation has been down to earth enough to join the forum, and reply personally to peoples concerns. I hope that he can persuade others involved, to draft changes, with consideration to the tiny minority in our hobby who might be caught up in more well intentioned, but ill conceived rule changes. I also hope that the club officials who attend the meetings, are as well prepared and knowledgable on the subject as Antarmike, and will represent the few people who will be affected with a well presented argument against changes that will adversely hit them.

Jules

Had a look around this last weekend. A big beast for sure 31 tonnes before the armour is added to make it 37 tonnes! Too big? One possible mod is for a reversing camera, but I think with a crew of 2 it should be possible to reverse and pick up a casualty without backing over it?

My poor old Explorer sitting neglected out in the snow, waiting for the extra 8" promised which sadly never arrived down South! Next time maybe?

Sorry to hear you're struggling with your flange. I guess it may not have been off before, combined with the flood water has made it seize on? I don't really have any great advice short of soaking it as best as can be done, and find a stronger puller set! I did the same seal on both our Explorers last year and they slid off with very little effort, too loose really. I had to take one off again this year which was entertaining cos the nut was really tight, but a high lift jack on the spanner was just enough, and it went with a good bang, and no injuries!

Jules

Last few photos.

A few more photos

A great trip this year with the weather, and the campsite both better than last year. 10/10 to Tony Lawrence, and the other club officials for all their time devoted to organising, negotiating and planning it all.

Thanks is also due to the French police who as always did a great job of escorting the convoy, along with the NLBA and other bike riders.

A good selection of vehicles turned out, and as far as I know everyone enjoyed the trip. The only major hassle that I'm aware of was for the Scammell Crusader bringing the T34 out and then back. Dover delayed their travelling by 18 hours out, and almost 10 hours on the return trip. Too heavy, too wide, "more than my jobs worth", etc.

Never asked for my "Export license" for the Militant, what a waste of time!

As requested some photos.

Jules

Has here been any clarification over items that may have been used by the Armed Forces that were or still are available to civilian buyers?

 

Also regarding section 6 of this scheme I am still not clear whether my 1970-80's collection of 9x9 tent, Clansman, jerry cans, pots and pans, tool boxes, webbing, combat clothing and boots etc are in need of an export licence or indeed whether each bit of kit needs a licence or just the vehicle they are carried in? Confused or what!!!!

Well it has crossed my mind that I should probably apply for SIEL's for the office body on the back of the Militant, the 3 jerry cans, 3 ex-army chairs, the 18 x 24 tent, the tool boxes, the 100 plus tools in each box, the weather balloons (don't ask!), penthouse lights, bergan, current issued bergan, sleeping system, snatch blocks, tow ropes, various nos spare parts, charging generator, flags, cam poles, cam nets, steps (broken), lifting chains, shackles, straight bar, etc.

Maybe if everyone were to apply for a licence for every individual thing ex-military they travelled abroad with, it would show how ridiculous the scheme is? Maybe it would just provide extra pointless jobs for the officials at our expense?

These days the important/valuable/sensitive military items or technically important "stuff", is far more likely to leave the country via the internet, or on a DVD, or a USB stick, than driving the finished article out through the docks!

Jules

I actually assume (possibly in error?), that someone responsible for such matters in the port, will have access to the license online, otherwise what's the point of having a computerised system?

Printing the header would no more prove it valid than the printed license itself?

Jules

I shall check the spare pump works, and that the pipe isn't blocked before re-fitting the pump cover. I think and electric drill or impact gun used carefully on the nut on the pump shaft should work. The other issue is the re-shimming of the large thrust bearing as this is clearly one of the major problems before, causing excessive backlash having worn the rear casing. It seems straightforward, so if all is ok, it should be back together by Friday evening, otherwise by the end of Saturday.

Jules

I spoke today with another MV enthusiast, who plans to travel to Holland next month. Like many he got bored with leaving messages on the Spire answerphone, and managed to get a number for a direct line to an official.

He was told that the licenses had always been in operation, and that without one your vehicle would be impounded? One wonders who has been living in the real world for the last 70 years with the scheme operating? Clearly just another official issuing licenses for those who really need them while everyone else just drove military vehicles in and out of the country without anyone else taking the slightest notice. An almost pointless job for 70 years!

I have no idea what the position is now in the ports, but I did check my printout of the license which does clearly state that to be valid it requires an official stamp, which funnily they haven't sent me!!

Jules