important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[antarmike]

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

 

There are plenty of equally ridiculous situations, Antar Ballast tractor is a Locomotive, The Artic version of the same vehicle is not because it is designed to carry an imposed load, i.e. some of the trailer load is carried on the rear bogey.

Where this leaves the Mk3A which has a fifth wheel, under a removable Ballast body, I do not know.

The wording for locomotive says "constructed", not "adapted" so when the ballast body is fitted, is that part of the construction, if it is an adaption, The the vehicle is not a locomotive even though a Ballast body is fitted because it is merely adapted, not constructed.

 

But then There were some Mk3A's built as such from new, so are these Locomotives, and the Mk3's that became Mk3A's by retro fitting a body not a locomotive even though both are absolutely isdentical, aprt from the Chassis plate on one is stamped Mk3A, and on the other it is stamped Mk3?

 

Does the fact that the Ballast body is removable (by a workshop operation) and there is a permanently mounted fifth wheel mean that it is always constructed to carry a load even when the Ballast body prevents this happening?

 

So we have ballast bodied Mk2, and my C6T both Locomotives, The Artic Mk2 not being a locomotive, The Mk3A either a locomotive or not depending on how you view it, and the Mk3 not being a locomotive.

 

Clearly utterly ludicrous, but that is the way it is!

Edited March 22, 2010 by antarmike

[griff66]

cheers for all your work on this antarmike

[LoggyDriver]

So what is the estimated time scale on this. I understand when all the nitty gritty has been done it is put out to another public consultation before implementation? Are we talking about a year?

[griff66]

i was told at least a year

[Stone]

The wording for locomotive says "constructed", not "adapted"

Correct, equally it says equipment that's permanently or semi-permanently mounted is disregarded as goods or burden for the test of whether it's carrying a burden, so our MJ (with a bedfull of fixed equipment) is technically not a goods vehicle, even though the "goods vehicle-derived" vehicles with an MOT exemption are the ones they're seeking to ban!

 

I think my head's going to explode if they make it spin any more :nut:

 

Stone

[john fox]

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.

 

so your objection is if the consulation removes exemption from a motor tractor, then the consequence is ... what ? err... it is you will have to pay to get an MOT - if the MOT was free it would not matter. QED

 

having a voluntary MOT is a bit like paying for insurance on your house, if anything happens you can produce a bit of paper which will mitigate the consquences, ie you can prove to plod it was independntently and authoritatively certificated as road worthy at one date in the last 12 months. I like that level of reassurance as a personal choiuce, but agree it is wasting money in the current context - that said I know one Freet owner who can't even drive his properly let alone maintain it. In contrast my opersonal choice is that I only insure one of my houses (the tenanted one) as it is at higher risk than the other (untenanted) property. We have never claimed once in 46 years so again a waste of money!

[griff66]

as i stated in previous posts consultation is aimed at lack of harmonization between member states as regards to mot exempt HGVS, a ferret is in no way shape or form a hgv hence my interest in the consultation ...as for your example about getting a mot on a mot exempt ferret , well that piece of paper will prove what? the testing station has tested a mot exempt vehicle ? /tested iaw what, class 4, class 7, hgv what? then the coup de grace , you will mot a mot exempt ferret but not insure a house! ( not sure what the comment about one freet owner?who cant even drive his let alone maintain it has got to do with this)

Edited March 23, 2010 by griff66

[antarmike]

Defo invite to a meeting in London

also attending

Quote from e-mail

"I believe that the following are attending:

 

Colin Billington NARTM

 

David Hurley, FBHVC

 

Geoff Fletcher, MVT

 

Mike Fincher, HMVF

 

Fraser Clayton, HCVS

 

Someone from IMPS (James Baxter unable to attend)

 

Someone from VOSA."

Edited March 26, 2010 by antarmike

[griff66]

good stuff mike , better to be in the loop than out.

[ArtistsRifles]

Good luck on the day sir.

 

(if the VOSA rep is anything like the ones I've had to deal with - please try to refrain from throttling them before the end of the session!)

[griff66]

the dealings i,ve had with vosa thru letters and chat on telephone they seemed all right.

[Mk3iain]

Must say, I have been pulled many times for a roadside check in my work truck and my M1008! in the Aberdeen area. Always polite and helpfull, but I have never failed on anything only a mention to keep a eye on my Chevys rear brake pipes!

In Scotland VOSA can not stop you, they need a police presence and maybe this helps calm things?

Strangely the team somtimes includes council reps who sniff the cab etc to check for smoking...so they say!

Usual things up here are overloaded horse boxes, animal trailers etc and of course red diesel....

Cheers

Iain

[ArtistsRifles]

the dealings i,ve had with vosa thru letters and chat on telephone they seemed all right.

 

Alas mine - as has been well recorded - have not - neither written, verbal or face to face! Sounds like you were lucky! :-)

[griff66]

off to buy a lottery ticket!

[LoggyDriver]

The guys down at Newbury VOSA are pretty good. I think there is one jobsworth there as far as I can remember, but a few of the guys own old buses and they are spot on. However I've heard Bicester VOSA are like the old East German Secret Police.

[abn deuce]

Strangely the team somtimes includes council reps who sniff the cab etc to check for smoking...so they say!

Cheers

Iain

What laws do you have over there on smoking or is the material being checked for of an herbal type?

[Marmite!!]

What laws do you have over there on smoking or is the material being checked for of an herbal type?

Totally irrelevant to this very important thread... please stay on topic

[antarmike]

Defo invite to a meeting in London

also attending

Quote from e-mail

"I believe that the following are attending:

 

Colin Billington NARTM

 

David Hurley, FBHVC

 

Geoff Fletcher, MVT

 

Mike Fincher, HMVF

 

Fraser Clayton, HCVS

 

Someone from IMPS (James Baxter unable to attend)

 

Someone from VOSA."

 

Just had an e-mail. IMPS are unable to send a representative, Geoff Fletcher has agreed to wear two hats ans represent MVT and IMPS

[griff66]

thats a question that needs a answer why nobody from imps is going?

[julezee001]

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

[antarmike]

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

 

The exemption that you do not neeed an HGV to drive a pre 1960 HGV (unladen) is totally different legislation to Pre 1960 HGV's being exempt testing if they are used unladen. If pre 1960 vehicles were to become liable to MOT testing (and the consultation process is asking does anyone feel that they should, amongst the many things it addresses), there is no suggestion this will alter the HGV drivers licence exemption.

[julezee001]

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

[antarmike]

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

Do you mean if it reqired an HGV MOT test?

[N.O.S.]

Do you mean if it reqired an HGV MOT test?

 

Around these pasrts a lorry test is commonly referred to as 'HGV test' or 'Ministry test', very rarely as 'HGV MOT' or 'MOT test'.

 

But then we still look up at aeroplanes.........

[antarmike]

Around these pasrts a lorry test is commonly referred to as 'HGV test' or 'Ministry test', very rarely as 'HGV MOT' or 'MOT test'.

 

But then we still look up at aeroplanes.........

 

So when not looking up at Aircraft, what do you call the driving test for an HGV?

Edited March 28, 2010 by antarmike