important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[ArtistsRifles]

Why do I bother.......... <sigh>

 

We have an almost heaven sent opportunity to enter into discussion with the DfT via the 3 main organisations that represent each and every one of us in some way or another as well as via this forum to get a lot of anomalies, not just the MOT exemptions, cleared up once and for all via constructive & open dialogue.

Fortunately it would seem the MVT, IMPS and FBHVC do appear ready and willing to engage in such dialogue.

[antarmike]

Why do I bother.......... <sigh>

 

We have an almost heaven sent opportunity to enter into discussion with the DfT via the 3 main organisations that represent each and every one of us in some way or another as well as via this forum to get a lot of anomalies, not just the MOT exemptions, cleared up once and for all via constructive & open dialogue.

Fortunately it would seem the MVT, IMPS and FBHVC do appear ready and willing to engage in such dialogue.

 

This is neither the time nor the place for that discussion. The consultation process has fixed aims and I cannot make it into what it is not.

 

I will be attending the same meeting in London that MVT, IMPS and FBVHC are attending.

 

I don't understand what evidence you have to suggest that these other representative bodies are taking a different viewpoint or that they are going to wander of subject to try to clear up "anomolies"

 

When I read Windscreen, MVT seemed to be saying, "There are proposals, we don't think many members will be affected by them, we will be making a response but if you think you may be affected, write to DfT off your own back" I know that is not a direct quote, but in essence that is what they appear to be saying. There is nothing they say they are talking to DfT about that is not directly related to the consultation.

 

Can we get beyond the childish sighs, and "why do I bother" and concentrate on the matter in hand...please...

 

Did you write to DfT in response to the consultation? Did you suggest that it was an ideal time to clear up all the anomolies and other areas of vehicle law apart from MOT issues? What suggestions did you put forward to them? What response did you get?

 

Relpy by PM please Neil, this isn't the time or place.

Edited March 21, 2010 by antarmike

[Marmite!!]

Why do I bother.......... <sigh>

 

We have an almost heaven sent opportunity to enter into discussion with the DfT via the 3 main organisations that represent each and every one of us in some way or another as well as via this forum to get a lot of anomalies, not just the MOT exemptions, cleared up once and for all via constructive & open dialogue.

Fortunately it would seem the MVT, IMPS and FBHVC do appear ready and willing to engage in such dialogue.

 

Neil,

 

your remark is uncalled for, we went through this via PM's.

 

Mike has worked very hard, giving up his own time to help the members of this forum, what some members are asking him to do is well outside the remit of the consultation...

 

What I would say is that if anyone can do better then get of your arses & get working at it... I'm p*ssed off at the lack of gratitude from some quarters..:mad:

What response have you had from the clubs you belong too? get them to fight your corner if you think Mike/HMVF is not going in the right direction...

 

Rant over

[ferretfixer]

What is the arguement for not testing fairly modern Scammells (S26 and the like) and Fodens just coming out of service? Why should DAF Artillery tractor, Maz and Kraz not be tested? If it is practical to test a vehicle, then the arguement is that it should be tested. Civilian operators of Ex Military Foden Recovery vehicles will need to MOT them if this proposal goes through. Why, if an operator has to MOT one, should a private collector expect not to have to?

 

The discussion document asked for representations to be made on behalf of vehicles that it would be difficult/ impossible to test. And it is these vehicles that that need to be kept out of the testing regime.

 

We have to keep in our sights what the aim of the consultation document was, and stop trying to make it an opportunity to allow anything and everthing we fancy buying or wish to own onto the road, without testing, if testing is possible.

 

I have to argue that HMVF Supports moves to improve vehicle safety and reduce accidents, and that we are not against testing just for the sake of it, we support testing where it is practical, where it does not put an unfair financial burdenon the owner, or where the vehicle is engineered in such a way as to comply with modern practice and standards.

 

I have to argue that HMVF, even though it supports MOT testing in general principle, does not feel that certain vehicles, because of their design, or other valid reasons, that have until now been MOT exempt, should become liable for MOT testing.

 

I would like us all to try and keep an eye on the ball, and not try and turn the consultation into something it isn't..

 

OOPPS! I SHOULD have been clearer with my post as regards to Exemptions for modern vehicle being released later! I was looking at this area of the Topic with a Biased view towards Armoured vehicle If Im Honest. That's not to say as Mike elequently put's it. 'Vehicle that may be impractical to test'. Lets be honest, Armour is one area where it is a manufactured vehicle for one basic purpose, MILITARY USE! (Forget Police & Bank Armoured Trucks!) They are by their nature, Heavy, Akward & I would think VERY difficult to bring in a Testing Section that would cover all types. So Lee's wording for 'Vehicles For Particular Military Use' would be a step in the right direction. A good area here is actually in legislative Law. For example, In the Firearms Amendment act (DONT get me started on that one!) There are Blank sections left blank DELIBERATELY. This was done so that later rules could be added if deemed Nessscary. IE: The Government wants to ban X,Y,Z Type of Firearm. This could ALSO be put in as a request for impending potential legislation so that IF, any particular type of Armoured or otherwise vehicle is obtained. It could STILL be put on the road with an Exemption. The bottom line is, we are MOSTLY all agreed that we have nothing against safety or testing in general terms. BUT, that testing MAY present some serious difficulties with potential types & also the stations that would have to test them. So it COULD be argued with REASONABLE request, that when the legislation is drafted, BLANK sections (Not too many, obviously!) could be left to cover this POTENTIAL eventuality. As we are aware, once legislation is in place, it is VIRTUALY impossible to get it changed.

 

Mike.

[antarmike]

OOPPS! I SHOULD have been clearer with my post as regards to Exemptions for modern vehicle being released later! I was looking at this area of the Topic with a Biased view towards Armoured vehicle If Im Honest. That's not to say as Mike elequently put's it. 'Vehicle that may be impractical to test'. Lets be honest, Armour is one area where it is a manufactured vehicle for one basic purpose, MILITARY USE! (Forget Police & Bank Armoured Trucks!) They are by their nature, Heavy, Akward & I would think VERY difficult to bring in a Testing Section that would cover all types. So Lee's wording for 'Vehicles For Particular Military Use' would be a step in the right direction. A good area here is actually in legislative Law. For example, In the Firearms Amendment act (DONT get me started on that one!) There are Blank sections left blank DELIBERATELY. This was done so that later rules could be added if deemed Nessscary. IE: The Government wants to ban X,Y,Z Type of Firearm. This could ALSO be put in as a request for impending potential legislation so that IF, any particular type of Armoured or otherwise vehicle is obtained. It could STILL be put on the road with an Exemption. The bottom line is, we are MOSTLY all agreed that we have nothing against safety or testing in general terms. BUT, that testing MAY present some serious difficulties with potential types & also the stations that would have to test them. So it COULD be argued with REASONABLE request, that when the legislation is drafted, BLANK sections (Not too many, obviously!) could be left to cover this POTENTIAL eventuality. As we are aware, once legislation is in place, it is VIRTUALY impossible to get it changed.

 

Mike.

 

 

I hear what you are saying, particularly about armour.

 

One problem already addressed by this forum is tracked Armour. The problem being that due to "operational requirements" most of the tracked armour exceeds the 2.55m width allowed in C and U regs for the maximum width of a track laying vehicle.

 

Armed forces can use wider tracked vehicles on the road, (but ralely do, preferring to move it on transporters) because they are given dispenstaion by the Secretary of State to exceed C&U regs relating to the width of tracked vehicles, "because of Specific Operational requirements that require this limit to be exceeded".

 

Tracked armour is therefore generally not legal for road use, because a private individual cannot get exemption from observing the width restriction for Track laying vehicles laid down in C&U regs.

 

As the law stands at present it is (in my judgement) illegal to drive an FV432 (series) Centurion ARV, Cheiftain, and the like on the road.

 

It is my opinion that although some owners of these types of vehicle have managed to get them road registered, this is an error made by DVLA and they should not, by the letter of the law, be allowed on the road, nor registered for road use.

 

It is therefore very difficult to argue the case for allowing these tracked vehicles over 2.55m wide on the road, regardless of whether they are tested for roadworthiness or not. I therefore cannot see how I can argue their position within the framework of the current discussion process, nor for that matter any new type of tracked armour that may be released in the future.

 

They should be moved by Transporter to where they will be exhibited/ demonstrated.

 

A similar problem exists for Wide, Nato and ex Eastern Bloc wheeled vehicles, that are not built or adapted as AILV's.

 

It is hard to see how, say a Kraz with radio body, nor the much discussed Stalwart, can be used on the road legally if its width exceeds 2.55m. I cannot therefore see how I can argue for vehicles that would fall within this group if they were to be released from service some time in the future.

 

Where there may be scope for discussing the position of newly released vehicles if those wheeled armoured vehicles, that can be viewed as being Locomotives, because they come in at under 2.75m wide, (or Motor tractors at 2.55m wide or under). If these vehicles will present difficulties being MOT tested, then they do need to be talked about, I agree.

 

The only way forward, so far as I can see, for wide (over 2.55m) tracked vehicles, and Wheeled vehicles over 2.55m wide, (not being AILV's) or 2.75m for vehicles which can be classified as locomotives, is to seek an Vehicle Special Order under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988

 

 

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?17128-Special-Types-Vehicle-Problems-A-Possible-Solution

 

It is a sad fact of life that we can't just go out and buy ANY ex military vehicle and expect to be allowed to drive it on the road. Some types of vehicle are only allowed on the road, by direct permission of the Secretary of State, because of specific operational requirements, and we as Civilians have no method of obtaining this permission as a right.

 

Another point to remember, is that really our standpoint is on behalf of Historically important vehicles. The forum is the Historic military vehicle forum. Unfortunaletly the Discusion document (and the EU with whose laws the document seeks harmonisation) sees this as pre 1960. VED rules see this as pre 1973, others view it as more than 25 years old. Newly released equipment is rarely, these days, anything like this old.

 

Although we may see them as worth saving, or want to own them, it is hard to argue that a vehicle freshly released by the ministry is Historic, in the sense the discussion process views historic, and therefore deserves special consideration. This is not to say that I won't be saying whatever I can to ensure that changes to the present rules, won't make it impossible to use these vehicles in the future, when they truly can be seen as being of Historic importance. I am not in favour of a named vehicle list, but would prefer a form of words that will encompass all military vehicles past, present and future that may come into private hands for preservation, which for whatever reason are impractical to MOT.

Edited March 21, 2010 by antarmike

[LoggyDriver]

I think it would be a lot easier to argue that whatever vehicles are currently registered as exempt should remain so and that the legislation should not be applied retrospectively. Vehicles released after the change in the law becomes active should then be looked at individualy to assess their suitability for exemption on the new rules.

[antarmike]

I think it would be a lot easier to argue that whatever vehicles are currently registered as exempt should remain so and that the legislation should not be applied retrospectively. Vehicles released after the change in the law becomes active should then be looked at individualy to assess their suitability for exemption on the new rules.

 

I agree in principle but the DfT want to get all the HGV based vehicles currently exempt, into the testing regime. They are not prepared to let the existing number of exempt vehicles remain exempt, There WILL BE a big reduction. It is working out how to define the military vehicles that could/ should remain exempt, whilst removing an awful lot of presently exempted vehicles from the list.

[ChasSomT.]

AntarMike, I hear what you are saying re HGV based vehicles, which is what I understand the consultation is all about. Released ex military Fodens, MANs etc, certainly shouldn't be exempt. They can 'easily' be MoT'd.

With reference to wheeled armour, UNDER the relatively recently imposed width limit, Fox, Ferret, these cannot be MoT'd because of permanent 4WD and 26"+ suspension movement!

Because there is no category for them, they are called Locomotives (light and heavy) and other categories. They obviously are NOT HGVs, or HGV based.

It obviously annoys owners of 'Legal', registered, ex military vehicles to learn that they now fall foul of a recently imposed width limit, (that didn't/doesn't apply to the same vehicles, when in military ownership!)

Stalwarts, 432 series, Saracens, Saladins, OT??s etc.

All of this could at least have been partially avoided IF there was a category such as 'Ex Fighting Vehicles'.

As has previosly been mentioned, the mileage these vehicles do has kept them 'below the radar' ie no incidents to draw official attention to their road use.

What I suggested in my previous post was that this 'oppurtunity' could be taken to maybe suggest a category, not a list, as another poster (Sorry) pointed out, to try and alleviate some anomolies we face.

[N.O.S.]

The only way forward, so far , for wide (over 2.55m) tracked vehicles, and Wheeled vehicles over 2.55m wide, (not being AILV's) is to seek an Vehicle Special Order under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988

 

 

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?17128-Special-Types-Vehicle-Problems-A-Possible-Solution

 

It is a sad fact of life that we can't just go out and buy ANY ex military vehicle and expect to be allowed to drive it on the road. Some types of vehicle are only allowed on the road, by direct permission of the Secretary os State, because of specific operational requirements, and we as Civilians have no method of obtaining this permission as a right.

 

 

Well by now it must be apparent to the authorities reading this thread that there are already a number of preserved mvs out there which technically fall foul of the width restriction of 2.55m, despite being taxed.

 

So it would not be giving anything away to highlight the plight of owners of such vehicles, and owners of similar vehicles who may wish to put them on the road in the future.

 

Therefore you COULD ,if you were sympathetic to the plight of certain mv owners, use these discussions as an opportunity to bring up the subject of wide vehicles and this possible solution, and request that consideration be given to recommending that this possible solution be taken into account when contemplating how to prevent certain preserved mvs from falling foul of this hgv-based MOT round-up.

 

Surely this is not too much to ask? After all, you could argue it is relevant to the MOT review, since such wide vehicles could not be readily MOT'd.

[griff66]

ferret is classed as a motor tractor.

[Tony B]

Biggest problem here is are there going to be 'Guidelines', Enabling legislation, or definte exemptions and non exemptions. Mike you are doing a good thankless job. Legsilative draughtsmen, get about £100,000 a year to argue where the commas should go, and we still end up with disputes!

[antarmike]

AntarMike, I hear what you are saying re HGV based vehicles, which is what I understand the consultation is all about. Released ex military Fodens, MANs etc, certainly shouldn't be exempt. They can 'easily' be MoT'd.

With reference to wheeled armour, UNDER the relatively recently imposed width limit, Fox, Ferret, these cannot be MoT'd because of permanent 4WD and 26"+ suspension movement!

Because there is no category for them, they are called Locomotives (light and heavy) and other categories. They obviously are NOT HGVs, or HGV based.

It obviously annoys owners of 'Legal', registered, ex military vehicles to learn that they now fall foul of a recently imposed width limit, (that didn't/doesn't apply to the same vehicles, when in military ownership!)

Stalwarts, 432 series, Saracens, Saladins, OT??s etc.

All of this could at least have been partially avoided IF there was a category such as 'Ex Fighting Vehicles'.

As has previosly been mentioned, the mileage these vehicles do has kept them 'below the radar' ie no incidents to draw official attention to their road use.

What I suggested in my previous post was that this 'oppurtunity' could be taken to maybe suggest a category, not a list, as another poster (Sorry) pointed out, to try and alleviate some anomolies we face.

 

Saracen and Saladin fall within width for a locomotive. Stalwart is the Alvis that is in trouble, because it is wider than its forebears.

[antarmike]

 

 

Well by now it must be apparent to the authorities reading this thread that there are already a number of preserved mvs out there which technically fall foul of the width restriction of 2.55m, despite being taxed.

 

So it would not be giving anything away to highlight the plight of owners of such vehicles, and owners of similar vehicles who may wish to put them on the road in the future.

 

Therefore you COULD ,if you were sympathetic to the plight of certain mv owners, use these discussions as an opportunity to bring up the subject of wide vehicles and this possible solution, and request that consideration be given to recommending that this possible solution be taken into account when contemplating how to prevent certain preserved mvs from falling foul of this hgv-based MOT round-up.

 

Surely this is not too much to ask? After all, you could argue it is relevant to the MOT review, since such wide vehicles could not be readily MOT'd.

 

Point taken on board.

[ArtistsRifles]

Neil,

 

your remark is uncalled for, we went through this via PM's.

 

Mike has worked very hard, giving up his own time to help the members of this forum, what some members are asking him to do is well outside the remit of the consultation...

 

What I would say is that if anyone can do better then get of your arses & get working at it... I'm p*ssed off at the lack of gratitude from some quarters..:mad:

What response have you had from the clubs you belong too? get them to fight your corner if you think Mike/HMVF is not going in the right direction...

 

Rant over

 

OK - since you ask - letters sent to Dft, MVT, IMPS and FBHVC - all 3 clubs replied they were going to be talking to the DfT with regards to the points raised - all of which have been mentioned here either by myself or others. They are the organisations with what ever "clout" exists to try and get our hobby and the regulations brought together as amicably as possible to both sides. I no not decry Mikes efforts on behalf of the forum in regards to the particular issue of the MOT exemptions - in fact I have said he is to be commended for his effort - this has been stated in PM's to Jack & yourself that you refer to.

 

The kick-off this time from Mike was in response to an observation I made in response to another members (FerretFixer) idea/concept of a description for those vehicles that were purpose built for military use and not adapted from Civilian versions. Other than armour, which by it's very nature is military, other forms of vehicle may at first glance appear to be civilian in origin yet are not. This, to my mind included things like the purpose-built Fodens for the UK army, DAF units from the Dutch Army and the Soviet Maz and Kraz missile transporters. I personally would love to see an MOT station try and make heads or tails of one of these latter ones - not very likely though... I digress though - the rely from me was purely an observation in response to the original post and I feel the reply it got was unwarranted.

[antarmike]

Its no problem Neil, as I say I will be attending a meeting in London about this. I am more than happy to take Pm's and respond to PM's before I go. I am torn between but I would like to see happen , and what I know from prelimenary phone conversations are the limits of what can be achieved.

 

The best outcome is to limit the damage to the hobby. This process cannot solve all the problems that exist currently. DfT cannot move too far, they cannot start creating whole new categories of exemptions, because the driving force behind the exercise is to implement European law that should have been implemented in the UK some time ago. The DfT have a certain flexibility to grant exemptions, but only within the framework of "Historic, which means for EU law 1960 or earlier, or vehicles which are seldom used on the roads, or those for which testing presents real problems.

 

The process is to achieve harmonistaion throughout the whole of the EC, and this means UK Government, cannot start to introduce new classes of vehicles such as the "ex Military" or "designed for Miliatry use" suggested here. It just is not within the remit of the decision makers to do this. I know enough from convesations I have had already, that it is completely ridiculous to expect it.

 

I have no axe to grind, I have not given up on any particular vehicle group, I am just trying to be realistic as to what is actually possible, and what leeway for movement actually exists. (and it is not much.)

 

I hope you understand where I am coming from, I understand with previous experiences you have had why you feel the way you do, but please believe me I am doing what I can.

 

The consultation has only one real purpose, and that is to implement EU law in the UK, and to find out, with the limited room the UK goverment has for movement, how this can be done with the least damage to our movement.

 

I know you feel strongly, so please, if you want to talk, keep it friendly, and if it is at all contravertial, please PM me rather than using the open Forum. MIke

Edited March 21, 2010 by antarmike

[julezee001]

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

[antarmike]

....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?.......

Jules

 

I believe an Explorer is a locomotive therefore width limit is 2.75m therefore rules have been correctly applied.

 

However we all know the truth is the law is incoherent, there are anomolies, officials don't know the rules well enough and mistakes do happen and wrong information is given out by these people.

 

Someone on this board posted the other day that he has a letter from DVLA saying his son had to be 18 to drive a vehicle under the "pre 1960, used unladen HGV exemption" , However I have seen a letter sent out by DVLA to another vehicle owner (an Explorer), saying that his son could drive it aged 17, on the new 3.5 Tonne B licence.

 

Written responses from DVLA should be legally binding, but clearly, they can also be totally contradictory and one of the responses has to be wrong. I am not going to call which answer is correct on this occasion.

[john fox]

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.

 

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

[griff66]

sorry to disagree but you say the only reason we are arguing is a cost issue , not true , as a ferret owner i started this thread after getting a letter from vosa saying my ferret was exempt but there was a consultation going on .the consultation document is aimed at exempt hgv,s however as we know other NON targeted mv,s may get caught up in this. a ferret has always been mot exempt as classed as a motor tractor ,people who have mot ,ed there,s have to my mind wasted there money.

Edited March 22, 2010 by griff66

[ArtistsRifles]

Its no problem Neil, as I say I will be attending a meeting in London about this. I am more than happy to take Pm's and respond to PM's before I go. I am torn between but I would like to see happen , and what I know from prelimenary phone conversations are the limits of what can be achieved.

 

The best outcome is to limit the damage to the hobby. This process cannot solve all the problems that exist currently. DfT cannot move too far, they cannot start creating whole new categories of exemptions, because the driving force behind the exercise is to implement European law that should have been implemented in the UK some time ago. The DfT have a certain flexibility to grant exemptions, but only within the framework of "Historic, which means for EU law 1960 or earlier, or vehicles which are seldom used on the roads, or those for which testing presents real problems.

 

The process is to achieve harmonistaion throughout the whole of the EC, and this means UK Government, cannot start to introduce new classes of vehicles such as the "ex Military" or "designed for Miliatry use" suggested here. It just is not within the remit of the decision makers to do this. I know enough from convesations I have had already, that it is completely ridiculous to expect it.

 

I have no axe to grind, I have not given up on any particular vehicle group, I am just trying to be realistic as to what is actually possible, and what leeway for movement actually exists. (and it is not much.)

 

I hope you understand where I am coming from, I understand with previous experiences you have had why you feel the way you do, but please believe me I am doing what I can.

 

The consultation has only one real purpose, and that is to implement EU law in the UK, and to find out, with the limited room the UK goverment has for movement, how this can be done with the least damage to our movement.

 

I know you feel strongly, so please, if you want to talk, keep it friendly, and if it is at all contravertial, please PM me rather than using the open Forum. MIke

 

Fair reply and fair comment Mike. Please believe me - I do fully support all that you are doing for the hobby and have nothing but admiration for you stepping up to the mark on this score. I wish I had the time to do likewise but - crazily - even though I am out of work the demands of a an MSc take up a lot of what would be free time.

 

I am concerned - greatly about where all this might lead in the not to distant future. Excuse the brief diversion into politics of a kind - but to me it seems the EU is dominated by France and Germany - and you only have to look at the existing rules in these countries to see what likely EU legislation is in the pipelines that will affect all of us badly. This is why I say that this is an - perhaps THE only - opportunity all the associations representing MV owners here in the UK will have to at least try and get something installed to forestall the EU.

 

The exemption is the tip of the iceberg - as you say in your excellent letter we are are all committed to maintaining road safety by keeping our vehicles up to the highest standards. Those of us on the Pirbright weekend in 2007 were actually complimented by the Army on the levels of serviceability of the vehicles there and told they were at a far, far higher standard than when in actual service. If the exemptions are lost for a particular class - then perhaps there are grounds for requesting the DfT have their MOT inspectors work the same as DVLA's testers and be prepared to travel to the vehicles storage area to perform the required tests? Even if they double the cost of the actual test for this service it will still be cheaper for the owners than having to move a heavy, slow moving & thirsty vehicle to wherever the nearest testing station is.

 

The discussion over a revised class - to me - is not about the exemptions for MOT but for the actual registration of such vehicles. As you have pointed out a lot of vehicles built for specific Military use do not meet C&U and it is a nightmare trying to get such ones registered - and getting worse as VOSA clamp down tighter. This is one of the anomalies I feel the current negotiations could be used to explore outside of the MOT exemption negotiations. Again - no one I know is asking for an exemption from road tax as per the pre-1960/1973 vehicles, just the chance to register and use them whilst paying the relevant duty per year. Believe me - it's a lot less ££'s to tax a vehicle and pay for the fuel than paying haulage fees over the short distances to shows (for instance it cost me over £300 to get the OT moved 10 miles from it's store to a location and back again in 2008 - had it been registered and taxed it would have come to about £75 in total) and I believe the vehicles will do less, not more, damage to the roads. 13 tons spread over the foot print of tracks on resilient material, for instance puts a lot less strain on the road that does the same 13 tons loaded onto 20 tons of low loader - the resulting 33 tons then being applied to the road via the point contact of the tyres.

I feel if we, the MV owning community, show a willingness to talk to the DfT and reach an amicable agreement it will reflect well on the community as a whole. And if we can do it as soon as possible it will at least block, if not close the door to, any Franco-German plans for further restrictions on MV ownership. As recently as last year the DfT steadfastly refused to allow a change in the rules to allow European width caravans/trailers (2.5m) to be towed by anything other than a light commercial yet, after a good dialogue with the manufacturers and user groups, this is being revised this year to allow cars to tow such trailers. this, to me, says it can be done and is thus worth trying to do,

In view of the fact our vehicles travel such short distances in a given year I feel the associations representing MV owners - including HMVF - would have a good case to present to the DfT to request such changes. As others have said - we provide a service in education that no one else does. Were the state to offer such a service the tax burden would be substantial - yet we do it freely - and further enhance the tax flow into the state coffers by the fuel used and duty paid (where applicable)

[ChasSomT.]

In my post I wasn't suggesting a new 'Class' of EXEMPT vehicle, more a more accurate class for registration purposes.

Most of the 'Problem vehicles are already Mot exempt by virtue of tracks, weight, width, accessability of components, all-wheel-drive and other reasons I've no doubt.

Saracens and Saladins are over 'a width limit' but call them Locomotives, which they clearly are not, allows them to be legally wider. Can I call a 432 a Locomotive? Or do I have to make it narrower by loading it on a trailer? That is how ridiculous it is!

As for calling a Ferret a tractor, I've never seen one with a tow hook or bar, or even a picture of one.(Towbar I mean. . . )

AntarMike mentioned a few posts ago ". . vehicles rarely used on the road . . " Maybe that is an avenue which needs more exploring, 750 -1000 miles a year? How would that suit owners?

[Marmite!!]

As for calling a Ferret a tractor, I've never seen one with a tow hook or bar, or even a picture of one.(Towbar I mean. . . )

 

I believe the original had a NATO hook front & rear... see here.. #4

[antarmike]

In my post I wasn't suggesting a new 'Class' of EXEMPT vehicle, more a more accurate class for registration purposes.

Most of the 'Problem vehicles are already Mot exempt by virtue of tracks, weight, width, accessability of components, all-wheel-drive and other reasons I've no doubt.

Saracens and Saladins are over 'a width limit' but call them Locomotives, which they clearly are not, allows them to be legally wider. Can I call a 432 a Locomotive? Or do I have to make it narrower by loading it on a trailer? That is how ridiculous it is!

As for calling a Ferret a tractor, I've never seen one with a tow hook or bar, or even a picture of one.(Towbar I mean. . . )

AntarMike mentioned a few posts ago ". . vehicles rarely used on the road . . " Maybe that is an avenue which needs more exploring, 750 -1000 miles a year? How would that suit owners?

 

Saladin is clearly a locomotive, if you read the C and U definition of a locomotive, Saracen is less clear, admittedly.

 

432 cannot be a locomotive because it is designed to carry a load, and a locomotive ot tractor has to be "designed so as to not itself carry a load"

 

The trouble with limiting mileage is it has to be enforceable. If the door is open for this all sorts of dodgy motors to be on the road, without MOT's, mostly commercially operated, but with much clocking of the mileometer going on. I can't see how that could work.

 

A tractor does not have to tow anything (or even have the capacity) to be classed as a tractor. Ferret matches exactly the definition for a Motor Tractor. Don't fall into the trap of deciding what is a tractor and what is a locomotive from preconcieved ideas of what these should be. Look at the definition and you will find that this is what they are.

Edited March 22, 2010 by antarmike

[ChasSomT.]

I Do take your point AntarMike, but when the Locomotive 'classes' were set up, I don't think they had an 11ton AFV in mind (designed to carry ammunition I have to say) or an APC built to carry half a section of Infantry.

It's a bit like the offence of 'Furious Riding' that is still on the Statute books, and has been used against 'Lycra louts' - it was introduced to cope with horse riding 'Boy Racers' in the 18th century!

'Old Legislation' 'bent' to handle unthought of situations, years down the road.

I knew i shouldn't have put a figure to annual mileage, but it was in a previous post that you mentioned 'vehicles rarely used on the road'

I loved the Ferret ARV (More a crane than a tractor though!)

[Stone]

432 cannot be a locomotive because it is designed to carry a load, and a locomotive ot tractor has to be "designed so as to not itself carry a load"

How about for missile launcher / artillery / radar vehicles etc? (designed to carry 'fixed equipment permanently or semi-permanently fixed to the vehicle', I'd say...). By that definition a Cymbeline 432 would be OK but a troop-carrier not.

 

If you read the original C&U regs (you have to order a printed copy as they're just before the cutoff for being published online) you're allowed a width of 2.75m for locomotives, still doesn't cover a 432 or OT-90 but edges it a bit closer...

 

I think you're right in that there's no obvious registration class for vehicles that almost meet the C&U regs - in the past this has been widely ignored (witness the number of road-registered 432s) but now they're tightening up it seems to have exposed a gap in the middle. Width is obviously a sticking point for lots of things as there seem to be few classes that cover between 2.75m and 4.2m (the absolute maximum width of vehicle+load). I think you can have up to 3.2m with STGO 'tracked vehicle' but then you're only allowed to go to a port, railway station or 'demonstration' (whatever that might be defined as!) and only with police approval. More clarity would be very welcome on this at least - there are plenty of people willing to hand over road tax every year but without a class to slot their vehicles into.

 

Stone