croc

Robert Newman has been very helpful, he has shown enough interest to become a forum member and read this thread. I hope that, now the initial panic has died down, we can start to discuss the proposal and come up with some sensible contributions for Antarmike to put forward on behalf of HMVF.

There is no mention, anywhere in the proposal, of testing old vehicles to modern standards.

Yes it will be treated as per its age. The consultation is about removing exemptions, not adding regulations. The Construction and Use regulations have various age qualifiers. For example, Speedometers must be fitted to all vehicles, with some exeptions. Vehicles first used before 1.10.1937, motor cycle first used before 1.4.1984, maximum speed not exceeding 25mph, among others. The C&U regulations and the Road Vehicle Lighting regulations are the rules that have to be followed when a vehicle is tested. They are long winded but it is worth reading through them to be able to form a sensible opinion of which rules apply to each vehicle. There is a book available, "The Traffic Officers Companion" by Gordon Wilson, that gives a condensed working version of the various acts. Antarmike recomended it to me a few years ago, I would say it was a very worthwhile purchase.

Went out to play again today. The first thing I found was that the hole I left yesterday had drifted in again. Nice, deep, windblown drifts to play in. The Explorer managed to bash its way through though. Before I started I anchored the main winch to a suitable tree, this allowed me to push through the drifts and be able to winch backwards each time. In places there was a good five feet of snow, I wouldn't have got far without the winch. There is only about 100 feet of cable fitted at the moment so I had to stop when I was down to the last few turns on the winch drum. I have got a new rope to fit, just need time to get it done.

Got more than enough to play with here. I cant understand why people keep complaining about it.:-D More pics and video on the blog.

An Explorer will remain exempted as pre 1960. "motor vehicles first used before 1.1.60 and trailers manufactured before 1.1.60" is a category of vehicle exempted from the "sched 2 goods vehicles (plating and testing) regulations 1988" note that "breakdown vehicles" "cranes (mobile)" and "track-laying vehicles" are, currently, in the same list of exempted vehicles. The idea that the pre 1960 exemption does not apply to vehicles that are not goods vehicles is wrong, otherwise brakedowns, cranes, tracked etc would also not qualify for exemption, as they are not goods vehicles. A vehicle does not have to be a goods vehicle to be exempt from the regulations, it has to be in one of the exempted categorys. It is a selection of these categorys that are being reviewed by this consultation, the pre '60 category is not being reviewed.

I was out playing in the snow again, the drifts up the track from the house are getting interesting. Getting stuck isn't a problem when you have a winch. Here are the video links. enjoy.

Also in the list are "vehicles going to a port for export" and "police vehicles" Are the police a burden? :cool2:

Mike, my interpretation of this is that the pre '60 exemption "motor vehicals first used before 1.1.1960 and trailers manufactured before 1.1.1960 used unladen." is one of several exemptions from the sched 2 goods vehicles (plating and testing)regulations 1988. Others in the exempt list include funeral vehicles, lifeboat vehicles and playbuses, none of these could be described as "good vehicles"

I have read through the document a couple if times now and also spoken to the person responsible for running the consultation. To be honest it seems quite reasonable to question these categorys, aimed at people abusing the system to save operating costs. (Just like the "Fire Engine" category being restricted when the limousine companies started abusing that one.) In principal it is saying that vehicles that can be tested, should be tested. I can't see a problem with that. It does seem that preserved vehicles have not, so far, been considered, because it is aimed at stopping modern stuff using old loopholes. The change seems to be in the plating and testing regulations rather than the construction and use regulations so there is no proposal to test a 1960s vehicle to modern standards. For example, fitting of rear and side guards are not required for vehicles made before 1.1.84 so a 1967 Bedfoerd RL can't fail a test for not having them fitted. I have sent the person responsible for this consultation (Robert Newman, vehicleroadworthiness@dft.gsi.gov.uk, 0207 9446575) the link to this thread, he would welcome any sensible contributions to the consultation process. Remember it is still an active consultation, the best thing to do is present constructive responses.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the rolling "25 year exempt" taxation class was killed off by Mr Brown in 1998 and replaced with the current "Historic" taxation class for vehicles buiilt before 01/01/1973.

I would imagine a ferret would be a Heavy Motor Car taxed as Historic, why would a post '60 ferret be exempt? I am still pondering the consultation, will come up with a comment in due course

Given the current weather it could be frozen, it took a while for the unloader to defrost on the Explorer yesterday.

I can't find anything on it, could you post the link please.

Is that a chain linking the trailer to the tractor unit in case the fifth wheel fails, or part of the fifth wheel safety device?

Can anyone tell us, of the thousands of articulated lorrys on the roads of Britain, how many are fitted with safety chains in case the fifth wheel coupling fails? and what legislation are they contravening by not having safety chains fitted? I am not saying don't fit them, but why bother if the outfit is designed not to need them?

I seem to be in the minority but I am with Mike on this one. Why add extra levels of complexity to a system that already works? You spend so much time messing about with all the extra "safety" stuff that you end up forgeting to do the hitch up right in the first place... It's a bit like putting blankets on winch ropes in case they snap, rather than rigging it properly. If you are so unhappy with something that you have to start relying on safety devices, then sort the main problem out rather than making up new ones.

It would have taken more than VOSA to stop the Soviet ones?:coffee:

I can't see why a ton of Hiab should be any issue to something designed for suspended towing, even if the crane was overloaded the front would lift before the chassis came to any harm. The only thing that stikes me as odd was using a counterweight behind the cab rather than the original setup of removable weights on brackets at the front.

Tim, are you including the one mentioned in this thread? http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?11656-Rolls-Royce-armoured-car/page2

Welcome to the forum, good to see someone else with a proper size toy up here.

Got enough snow now to be worth taking pictures of.

Testing done, clutch working OK. A bit more snow on the ground now.

You should stick to eating it and stop rubbing it on.:coffee:

Isn't it the public car park at GDSF before they banned commercials?