antarmike

From Dept Of Transport's e-mail to me. "it would not be legal to use the vehicle in question on public roads in GB" Says it in one sentence doesn't it.

PM sent. The information you were given at the start is an accurate statement of the facts. "My understanding is that the 432s are not road legal, any that have been registered have been done in error, it would appear that they are too wide for U.K. roads, and the secondary braking system does not comply....... just a thought before you part with your hard earned cash." You would do well to heed it.

Actual wide vehicles of military origin being used legally on the roads of the UK, can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand...( well the one group that might contain wide Military vehicles being used legally is Recovery vehicles, registered as such and used only for recovery, (they raise the count slightly)) There are many other vehicles that are not legal, even though registered and taxed.....

Not necessarily, overwidth vehicles that comply with STGO regs and are used according to those regs can be used on the road. A vehicle that complies with the C and U regulations definition of "locomotive" can run at 2.75m Wide. I believe a Locomotive can be used for pleasure. The law on AILV's is not so easy to interpret and is definitely a grey area. That is one major consideration in selling my Mighty Antar. It was getting harder and harder to justify its use for merely attending local shows. It may have been legal to go to GDSF on the road, since I was making the journey in order to move an abnormal indivisible load when I got there ..... There are a whole list of very questionable ex military vehicles (both armoured and soft skinned) that are overwidth that are used on the road, which I feel should not be there......... I have mentioned those before and do not feel I need to go through the list again, but I will communicate via PM with anyone who wants my views on particular wide vehicles.....( both wheeled and tracked) Forum Warning, read and note If any reader wants to keep info from this thread, they should copy and paste it somewhere else now, it probably won't be around for long! Mods, this Topic also discusses braking requirements, and that is important, and not covered by the Forum ban on discussing over width vehicles. Please if you are going to "tidy" this thread, please do it in a way that preserves the comments and queries and responses relating to FV432 Brakes and braking requirements. Braking standards is a valid discussion, and comments made directly highlight problems with 432 brakes that indicate why they do not comply and why they should not be used on the road. Personally I think it is time for you to reconsider the original ban ( the post were said to be have been "temporarily removed" ) how long is temporarily?, that was over a year ago and they still haven't been re-instated........, Thanks Mike

There is only one version of construction and use regulations as ammended. All vehicles have to comply with these C and U or STGO regs. If, because of a vehicles age, there are allowances in the standards of construction or the dimension of that particuilar vehicles etc, those exemptions are incorporated into current C and U regs with a stated date of manufacture or first use of the vehicle to which that exemption applies . There are no such provisions for 432 since it has always failed to meet brake requirements and width requirements. Whenever a new version of legislation is enacted, previous versions are repealed. If 432 had to comply with legislation current when it was made then it would have to comply with a width limit of 2.5m Newer version of C and U now allows vehicles up to width limit of 2.55m. 432 never complied with original width limit. It was always to wide for civilian usage. Now, it is nearer complying than it was under old width rules, but still not near enough to comply. An operated Military vehicle (ie owned and run by the government/ Army) built and operated at the time 432 went into service was exempted complying with C and U regs. The secretary of state issues a exemption to the effect that "due to operational requirements" the vehicles performance and usefulness would be compromised if it had to comply with C and C regs. 432 never had to comply with any regulations, it was never designed to comply, and the Army knew full well that it didn't comply, but because Army operated vehicles did not have to comply meant they could design it however they liked, and still use it on the road quite legally. Civilian owned ex Military vehicles are not covered by this exemption, nor indeed has the Secretary of State got the legal power to grant exemption for a civilian owned vehicle. All Civilian owned vehicles have to comply with current C and U regs. The Army could legally run FV432 on the road with the full knowledge of every authority that it did not meet C and U regs. We can not do this. You use the word licensing, In army usage the vehicle isn't actually licensed. They do not have a DVLA registration mark, No road fund VED is paid. You cannot equate military use of 432 on the road, where they are used unregistered and untaxed because they are Crown Property, with "licensed use" by a civilian. A civilian can only register a vehicle in a particular taxation class if the vehicle definition is suitable for that Taxation class, and if the usage of the vehicle complies with any restrictions of use imposed by a particular taxation class. You are taking a non compliant vehicle that has never been road registered, and trying to register it under a civilian scheme. Forget the past, you have to look at the present to see whether it is legal to introduce this vehicle onto the road, as a civilian registered, C and U compliant vehicle. This I do not believe can be done legally.

This is the response I got from Witham's regarding why they advertised their FV432's as being road legal when they are actually overwidth and the brakes do not comply with regulations. AS far as I know this is still Witham's current standpoint. Quote email" Good Morning Mike, Thank you for the e-mail. That answers the question. I would not advise a customer to use a (432-9) on the Public roads. Customers who I have sold to in the past do have their own Land or ground to use the vehicle on. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information or to make an appointment.Our opening hours are 08.30 am to 17.30 pm weekdays,Sat morning 8.30 am to 04.00 pm Best Regards Graham Hodson Senior Sales Tel:+44(0)1476861361 Fax:+44(0)1476861441 Mobile:+44(0)7955260102 Email: graham.hodson@mod-sales.com Website: http://www.mod-sales.com "Unquote Witham's have ceased to say in their adverts that the FV432 is road legal and can be road registered.

You say you own a road legal FV432. Can you explain how you brakes have been re=worked to provide a secondary service brake system that complies with braking regulations? Other might want to modify their 432 in a similar way. The general feeling so far when this has been discussed is "Bulldog" is legal, but old style 432 is not, and would be hard to modify.

To which Dept Of Transport said " It may be that some of these vehicles have been registered but the fact that they are registered does not in itself provide an exemption from the requirements of the C&U regulations. " The point being there is the legal responsibility for the registered keeper to ensure the vehicle complies with C and U. If he permits a vehicle to be used which does not comply, then he commits an offence.

This is the full text of a two way question and answer with dept Of Transport. I have a response from Department of Transport regarding a query I sent them about FV432. I have copied that response and my original query to them Quote" Dear Mike Thank you for your email to TTS ENQUIRIES concerning operating the GKN FV432 series of Tracked Armoured Personnel Carriers on British Roads. For any vehicle to be used on the public roads in Great Britain, it must comply with insurance, licensing (tax) and registration requirements. It must also comply with applicable construction regulations. Primarily these are the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended) and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (as amended). Certain special vehicles that are unable to comply with the full requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (C&U) are however permitted to use public roads under the Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003 (STGO). I am afraid that from the information supplied, the vehicle in question exceeds the maximum vehicle width requirements of regulation 8 of C&U and also, there is no special vehicle category in the STGO that would permit the use of the vehicle you describe. Given that the vehicle in question exceeds the width restrictions imposed by C&U, and does not fit within one of the recognised vehicle categories within the STGO, it would not be legal to use the vehicle in question on public roads in GB for the purpose you describe. It may be that some of these vehicles have been registered but the fact that they are registered does not in itself provide an exemption from the requirements of the C&U regulations. I hope this information is helpful but it should be treated solely as advice given that in this country it is only the Courts that can interpret the law authoritatively. Yours sincerely Mary Kissane Department for Transport Transport Technology and Standards Division From: antarmike@aol.com [mailto:antarmike@aol.com] Sent: 21 June 2010 13:51 To: TTS ENQUIRIES Subject: Legality of operating the GKN FV432 series of Tracked Armoured Personnel Carriers on British Roads Dear Sirs, I am currently concidering buying an FV439 tracked armoured personnel carrier (APC).(one of the FV432 series of vehicles) It will come by way of a dealer appointed by the government to adminster the sale of ex Army vehicles. They assure me that it can be road registered and it is legal to use it on the road. However I have a lot of people saying it is to wide to use on the road. Its width is 2.819m, its weight unladen is 13.74 Tonnes, and its weight laden is 15.28 tonnes . People are telling me that the maximum width allowed under construction and Use regs is 2.55M wide. unless it is a locomotive (which can be 2.75m wide) or a refrigerated vehicle (which can be 2.6m Wide.) The FV432 tracked APC does not seem to fit Construction and Use Regs so I have looked at road vehicles(authorisation of special types)(general) orders. People have suggested it might fit into one of a number of categories but I cannot see this. They have suggested it might fit the follwing special types vehicles, but I have thought about this and written against each why I don't think it fits that class. As I understand it there are 17 categories within Special types, but not all categories allow width over the 2.55m allowed in C and U regs. Of those that do various people have suggested that FV432 series might fit into the following classes "Abnormal Indivisible Load vehicles." I thought the the vehicle has to be designed to carry a load that, because of its width, length, height or weight, cannot be carried by a vehicle complying fully with C and U regs, and which cannot economically, or through risk of damage be broken down into smaller loads that can be carried on a CandU compliant vehicle. As I see it this rules out FV439 being in this class. "Engineering plant" has as I understand it to be specially designed and constructed for the purpose of engineering operations which could not be carried out by a vehicle complying fully with C and U regs and goods vehicle type approval regs. The vehicle must not be constructed to carry any load apart from that allowed. namely its own nescessary gear and equipment, nor can it carry any other goods or burden except materials that have been excavated by the plant or goods that it is designed to process on the plant. FV439 does not comply with this definition, but it does carry two electrical generators. Do these class as engineering plant? (they are however small enough to be carried on a vehicle fully complying with C and U rags.. "Special types road recovery vehicle" these I understand have to be specially designed and constructed for the recovery of disabled road vehicles, or be permanently adapted for this purpose. They must be fitted with a crane , winch or other lifting system especially designed for recovering another vehicle. (FV432 isn't) They cannot be used for any other purpose than recovery, or taking a broken down vehicle to a place of repair. They must be registered recovery and hold a Recovery VED. They must also be wheeled vehicles. Fv439 cannot comply with this. "Wide agricultural vehicle" These I understand have to be a motor vehicle, that is constructed or adapted for use off-road for the purposes of Agriculture, horticulture or Forestry and which is PRIMARILY USED for one of these purposes. It is possible if a Fv432 series belongs to a farmer and it is used mostly, off-road in connection with with Agricultural business, then possibly it might fit into this category, but as such the on road use has got to be the minor part of its use, and Off-road use on a farm, directly doing agricultural work has to be the primary use. The FV439 I wish to buy will not be used in this way. "wide track laying vehicles" this sounds promising to me but then I read that they may only be used for demonstration, proceding to the nearest railway station for conveyance to a port for shipment, or if railway facilities do not exist it may be driven to the nearest port for shipment. So can't see the restrictions on use mean I can use one as a "wide track laying vehicle" class vehicle within STGO. "Operational Military Vehicle" I understand the secretary of State can for operational reasons certify a vehicle as incapable of meeting C and U regs. and therefore exempt it from C andU width limits. But as I understand it the vehicle must be the property of or under the control of the secretaty of state or of a procurement contractor or sub-contrctor who has obtained the Secretary of States permission for use on the road. Ie if it belonged to the army, it would fit this class and could be used by virtue of the certificate of exemption issued by the Secretary of State. This exemption is not available to privately owned, ex military vehicles I have e-mailed Witham Specialist vehicles who are seeling me the vehicle as capable of being road registered and lawful to drive on the road if I hold the correct licence, and asked them what I should say to a Traffic officer or a VOSA official if I am asked why I am driving a vehicle 2.819m wide if the width limit under C and U regs is 2.55m wide and the vehicle and my use doesn't match an STGO category. They merely said the vehicle was legal for use on the road. I contacted them a second time, asking if I were stopped by a Traffic Officer, or a Vosa Representative, what I should say to them, if they asked me why I was using a vehicle of this width on the road. Which legislation should I quote to show that this vehicle is allowed on the road at a width of 2.816m. They have so far not got back in touch with me. I would value your decision as to the legality of driving this tracked vehicle on the road. Can you point me to the relevant authorisation either within C and U or Special Types, general orders that allows its use? Is there some other route by which this vehicles gains legitamacy to be used on the road.? My intended use is Social, Domestic and Pleasure, taking the vehicle to a few Military vehicle shows, steam rallies, vintage vehicle events and the like. The vehicle was built circa 1971. I suppose that when at shows it is being shown in some form of educational role. However I would also like to take it to the supermarket on occasions, just for fun. Should I carry on with the purchase of this vehicle, Can it be road registered? and is it lawful to drive on the road? What legislation allows it to exceed the 2.55m wide limit it seems to me C and U regs apply to most vehicles. If I bought one from elsewhere and found one of the many that have been already road registered, does the fact thta DVLA have permitted it to be road registered actually mean it is therefore legal to drive on the road? Thanks MIke " unquote This is the Dept. of Transports view as to the width Issue. I have not raised the question of Secondary braking with them.

This one is a bit cheaper (at the moment) http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/OLD-DINKY-677-MILITARY-ARMY-ARMOURED-COMMAND-VEHICLE-/140568008355?_trksid=p5197.m185&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC.OPJS%26itu%3DI%252BUA%26otn%3D10%26pmod%3D350472105624%252B330576299411%252B380350194054%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%

Last chance to grab one??? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/DIECAST-DINKY-1-43-MILITARY-COMMAND-VEHICLE-NO-677-/350472105624?_trksid=p5197.m7&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D5%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D993271685682234908#ht_500wt_1156

After 38 years good service Nimrod flew for the last time today, with a farewell flypast at RAF Waddington, its home base. Although very capable, and although it has a job to do in present ongoing conflicts, and despite the fact a replacement will not be flying until 2014, the Nimrod is forced into retirement. Although I could not get along today, I saw Nimrod overfly Conningsby (on its way back from the Middle east???), to Waddington yesterday. I hope this doesn't come round to bite us in the Arse in the same way, having no Harrier and no Ark Royal is hampering what we can achieve in the middle east right now. Farewell Nimrod. What a pity they couldn't keep in the air a few days longer so the Public could also say goodbye at the Waddington airshow!

RE Diamond T event. The Event is still on track, and everyone who applied can be sure that everything is in place for a good event. As you know, in the present economic climate, coming to the show is a big commitment, and I thank everyone who has agreed to attend. Unfortunately, this year some people have found themselves in a position whereby it will not be possible for them to attend. If anyone wants accurate information please contact me by PM. Update It is most probable that Dave Weedon will now be bringing the Ex Wynns Cummins engined T. and he is working hard to get another T along also!!

Yes V112G form needed each and every time....

Yes , I am a professional welder, I have been welding 40 years, and have worked the last 11 years exclusively in the welding Fabrication environment. I have taught welding in a technical college over a twenty year year period, I have been an NVQ assessor for welding. The problem is that being a welder is not the best qualification for knowing what is safe or best practice. Therefore often the best advice about weld safety does not come from other welding artisans (believe me,I have read welding forums and discussion rooms....) but from medical journals, scientific researchers, of professional elements within the Industry determined to overcome the present poor culture of safety and inaccurate information. These have been the source of the links I have posted during this discussion. So often the same Old wife's tales are passed from welder to welder that for them to get access to accurate reliable information about safety issues is difficult. Working as an NVQ assessor, I had to interview and test welders, to assess their level of competence,. One thing I realised from this process was a weakness in the way welding safety is taught. Welders I talked to knew very little about specific risks from particular processes. Welders I spoke to as part of this job had all sort of erroneous ideas about where dangers lay. People zoom in on Welding Galvanising because you see white fumes and smoke as the Zinc oxidises or burns off. This can get deposited on face shields in such a way you can't see through. It makes you fill sick for a day or two so exposure produces immediate observable symptoms. Galvanising is highly visible problem but in reality the risk is relatively low, since Zinc Oxide is non toxic and not a carcinogen. There are no known long term heath issues following Flu like episodes when Zinc Oxide fumes have been in inadvertently breathed in. Recovery is complete within a few days, with no lasting side effects. Other dangers such as welding Stainless steel, where Hexa-valent Chromium is emitted hardly get a mention, because you can't see smell or taste it, It does not give Flu like symptoms within a few hours. Many Chromium compounds are proven carcinogens. But because they can't be seen we don't hear countless tales of "Beware welding Stainless Steel" or " Stainless steel welding should only be done with full extraction and an airfed helmet" or " be very very careful not to breath in Grinding dust from stainless steel" If people want to worry about truly dangerous welding processes, they should give a little less airtime to Galvanised steel that just makes you feel sick for a few days and that is all, and worry instead about welding Stainless steel or any product with a Chromate finish. For that matter they should also be worrying about alloys containing Manganese {including bog standard Mild Steels!!!}, another known silent hidden toxin associated with Parkinson's disease amongst other problems. Neither Hexa-valent Chromium nor Manganese make you feel tangibly ill immediately after exposure, so welders don't identify any risk nor do they think of the consequences, but the health risks from either of these two types of exposure are far more real and dangerous than Zinc.. Welding Stainless Steels Welding Mild Steel and Alloy Steels containing Manganese Anyhow Robin, I am in danger of hijacking a good topic, so should we take any more to P.M.'s????

Sorry, haven't a clue, not my section....

Maybe a good idea to keep cats away from M.V,s as they seem to learn our violent ways... http://webmail1.mail.aol.com/33867-211/aol-6/en-us/mail/get-attachment.aspx?uid=30312700&folder=NewMail&partId=1&saveAs=A_INFLUENCIA_DA_TELEVIS_O.wmv

Sorry to disagree Robin, but that just isn't correct. Galvanising is a coating of Zinc on the steel substrate. Cadmium is another, but totally different, metal protective coating, that has its own problems , Cadmium being one of the most Toxic dangerous metals any Engineer or welder will ever encounter. As the Mediaeval Alchemists found you cannot change one metallic element into another, (well not without a Nuclear reactor anyway) . Welding Galvanising cannot give off Cadmium fumes. Regarding Welding Galvanising, this appears to be the accepted current view. It is widely accepted as being safe to weld, and non toxic. The only caveat is that some galvanised components are dipped in Zinc that may contain small quantities of dissolved Lead (which is toxic). Zinc Fumes -- A Safety Hazard? When zinc vapour mixes with the oxygen in the air, it reacts instantly to become zinc oxide. This is the same white powder that you see on some noses at the beach and the slopes (in Sun Block creams) . Zinc oxide is non-toxic and non carcinogenic. Extensive research (1) into the effects of zinc oxide fumes has been done, and although breathing those fumes will cause welders to think that they have the flu in a bad way, there are no long-term health effects. Zinc oxide that is inhaled is simply absorbed and eliminated by the body without complications or chronic effects. Current research (2) on zinc oxide fumes is concentrated in establishing the mechanism by which zinc oxide causes "metal fume fever," how its effects are self-limiting and why zinc oxide fume effects ameliorate after the first day of exposure even though the welder may continue to be exposed to zinc during subsequent days ("Monday-morning fever"). Other research (3) is being done using zinc oxide fumes together with various drugs which results in a synergetic effect for treatment of cancer and AIDS. Another area of research is use of zinc compounds as the active ingredients in throat lozenges that are recognized as significantly effective in reducing the duration and intensity of the common cold. Typical “metal fume fever” begins about 4 hours after exposure, and full recovery occurs within 48 hours. The symptoms include fever, chills, thirst, headache and nausea. All of these symptoms, pain and suffering, as well as lost work (and play) time, can be avoided entirely by simply not inhaling the zinc oxide fumes. This can easily be done using any of the methods described later. Unlike other heavy metals, such as copper, lead and mercury, zinc is an essential micro nutrient. Zinc is essential to the proper growth of plants and animals. Zinc forms part of the enzyme system that regulates biological processes throughout the body. As shown on any multi-vitamin/mineral bottle, the recommended minimum adult intake is 15 mg/day. (1) Walsh, Sandstead, Prasad, Newberne and Fraker, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 102, Supplement 2, June 1994, 5-46. Provides summary plus 471 references. (2) Kuschner,D'Alessandro, et. al., Pulmonary Responses to Purified Zinc Oxide Fumes, Journal of Investigative Medicine, 1995:43:371-378. (3) Robert Sabin, Zinc Activated Profile, COPE, March/April 1995: 16,17. Further reading on safety and practice of welding Galvanised material Welding Galvanised steel - Safely Following these instructions, pre-cleaning of galvanising prior to welding is (often) unnecessary, and following the advice contained in this link, welding galvanised components without grinding does not affect final weld strength. I am a professional welder and this works for me. Cadmium is a totally different beast and is highly toxic. Those who suspect that a part might be cadmium plated and want to weld it should read Cadmium welding and then forget the idea! Note great care should be taken Grinding off Cadmium since as a dust it is still highly toxic. See also Identifying various coatings including Cadmium Plating But note that the statement this link contains, namely that Cadmium plating is hardly used these days, is inaccurate. Cadmium Plating is very widely used to this date in Aviation and Military components.

Why people put "Horses" on Horse boxes. I know a horse box when I see one, what and guess what, I know what they have inside them.... Like "Caution Baby on board" signs, does knowing the contents of a vehicle make me less likely to crash into it or doesn't the fact I don't want an accident provide enough incentive to drive carefully?

If I own more than one vehicle, how to I enter this on the poll?

Why when women, when asked "what is wrong?", come back with , "If you don't know, I am not telling you". Can anyone explain how they think this takes the discussion forward or how it will lead to a resolution?

Does the top photo relate to this? http://www.milweb.net/webverts/57781/

Thanks, well known only if you have 432 manuals then?

The well known B and W photo??

Why there are road maps. Men don't need them and women can't read them.......